Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

GREATER LONDON COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL

BRITISH RAILWAYS BILL

Lords Amendments agreed to.

GREAT NORTHERN LONDON CEMETERY BILL [Lords]

As amended, considered.

Ordered,
That Standing Order No. 205 (Notice of Third Reading) be suspended and that the Bill be now read the third time.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, with amendments.

CROMARTY PETROLEUM ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL (By Order)

Order for consideration read.

To be considered tomorrow.

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

School Transport

Mr Boscawen: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will issue guidelines to local authorities in connection with the provision of free school transport.

The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Frederick Mulley): No, Sir.

Mr. Boscawen: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that there is great concern in Somerset due to the fact that all discretionary transport for school children may have to be withdrawn? As most discretionary transport is given on the ground of road safety in this rural area, and as the children who lose their transport will be at considerable risk if it is withdrawn, will the right hon. Gentleman hasten any changes in legislation that are required for the introduction of of fare-paying services to replace school transport?

Mr. Mulley: As the House knows from previous Questions there is no unanimity or any consensus among local authorities about any change in school transport arrangements. It was because I was concerned about exactly the points the hon. Gentleman has made that I made proposals just under a year ago. We can get no consent and, therefore, no changes are at present contemplated. As for Somerset's decision, it is within the discretion of the authority, and it would not be right for me to interfere with a local authority's discretion.

Mr. Watkinson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in Gloucestershire, too, considerable hardship is being caused to working-class parents by the withdrawal of concessionary fares for their children travelling on school transport? Does he agree that it would be helpful if there could be more centralised guidance on matters such as school transport?

Mr. Mulley: The arrangements for school transport are well known and have not changed. The issue of concessionary


fares is a matter for the transport operators and for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. I know that this is a matter that has attracted their attention. It is not within my powers to deal with concessionary fares.

Mr. Luce: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that in my constituency there is considerable resentment as between parents who live within the three-mile area or who are on the border and those who live just beyond it and who are supplied with free transport as a result? Is he aware that there is growing resentment about this? Will he seriously consider the possibility of standard fares for all? Although it is right that the right hon. Gentleman should not give an instruction, when does he intend to give some form of guidance to local authorities on this matter?

Mr. Mulley: I issued proposals to the local authorities, and the county councils are very much opposed to any change. There was nowhere any desire to have exactly the same system as the hon. Gentleman has outlined, which is a good summary of what I proposed. Without local authority support, it is impossible to change the system.

Mr. MacFarquhar: I do not follow my right hon. Friend on the last point. The fact that the local authorities are unable to agree or to give guidance to my right hon. Friend does not mean that he has to abdicate his right to legislate on this matter.

Mr. Mulley: Legislation would be required to change the statutory distances. The main difficulty, however, is that some element of the cost is borne by the local rates, and local authorities already have substantial difficulty in maintaining their expenditures within the guidelines of Government policy. Therefore, it would be unreasonable to try to impose a policy which they were all against.

GCE O-level Passes

Mr. Newton: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what percentage of GCE O-level candidates obtained two or more Grade 1 passes in 1967; and what was the equivalent percentage in 1975.

The Minister of State, Department of Education and Science (Mr. Gerry Fowler): The exact information required is not available. Until 1975, GCE O-level examination results were reported only as passes or failures. Since then Grades A to E have been awarded, of which A, B and C may be taken as equivalent to the former "pass". In 1967, 80 per cent. of the 234,000 pupils who left school after attempting O-level achieved two or more passes; in 1975, 64 per cent. of the 340,000 who attempted O-level achieved Grade C or above in two or more subjects.

Mr. Newton: I accept that the statistical evidence is not easy to interpret.
[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Labour Members obviously did not listen to the answer. I accept the problem of making comparisons over a period of time, but does the Minister accept that recent reports and studies of examination results have enhanced parental and public anxiety about standards? Will he accept that it is time that Ministers gave time to responding to that aspect rather than put the best possible gloss on each piece of evidence?

Mr. Fowler: I was unaware that I put a gloss on some rather complex evidence. The most significant feature is the very greatly increased number of pupils who are taking O-levels. That is partly the result of the raising of the school leaving age. The other evidence is susceptible to more than one explanation, and I would not wish to hazard a view at this stage.

Mr. Cormack: Will the Minister turn his face firmly against those who would propose the abolition of "failure" and ensure that, whatever changes take place in the examination structure, those who pass pass and those who fail fail, so that we know which is which?

Mr. Fowler: I do not wish to comment at this stage upon proposals to change the examination structure. I should be delighted to aboblish failure from our society.

Numeracy

Mr. Goodlad: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will institute an inquiry into the numeracy of children.

The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Miss Margaret Jackson): We are convinced of the importance of numeracy, but we are not equally convinced at present that an inquiry is the best way of proceeding.

Mr. Goodlad: Will the Under-Secretary accept that many people are worried that a number of children who are likely to leave school this year can barely add up? Will she consider the possibility of establishing an emergency teaching course, using the so-called cascade system, which has been so successful in the United States and which might go some way to alleviating the likelihood of a large number of teachers and school leavers being in the dole queue in the autumn?

Miss Jackson: Views about the ability of people to be numerate or literate are based on subjective comment rather than on statistical evidence. We are concerned about this matter and it is now being studied by the Assessment of Performance Unit, whose report we await.
As for the hon. Gentleman's comments about an emergency teaching course, the only proposal put to me so far about such a course indicates that perhaps people who are now emerging from the training colleges should be used to train school leavers to teach those who are backward in particular subjects. We are not convinced that this is an adequate way in which to use resources.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: On what evidence does the Department believe that there is no real problem of numeracy? If the Department is now seeking to rely on a future report by the Assessment of Performance Unit, what has the Department been doing in the last 20 years?

Miss Jackson: I have no idea where the hon. Gentleman got the idea that I believe there is no problem of numeracy. He seems to have made it up, because the idea came from no words of mine. Work is being carried out by such people as the National Foundation for Educational Research and the Schools Council on numeracy training in mathematics and allied subjects over the years. Furthermore, Her Majesty's Inspectorate is now carrying out a survey of primary and secondary schools, which we are coupling with the work of the Assessment

of Performance Unit into difficulties and ways of removing difficulties associated with numeracy. Obviously, the hon. Gentleman drew his conclusions before he even asked his supplementary question, which he based on something that had never been said.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: Is not the hon. Lady aware that the situation concerning numeracy is even worse than that in regard to literacy? Does she not appreciate that a recent conference of vice-presidents of technical institutions stated that pupils coming to them at the age of 16 had obtained a standard of numeracy of only 11½ years? Will she please be less complacent on this vital issue?

Miss Jackson: I am aware that many comments and assumptions are made by many people in education, and not just about standards of numeracy. However, I am not aware of any sensible, valid statistical evidence. Indeed, it comes ill from the Opposition to be arguing and commenting on numeracy when basing their comments on a total lack of understanding of what is involved in the statistical evidence in judging any kind of assessment of numeracy.

Mr. Flannery: Does my hon. Friend agree that Conservative Members are characterised by a negative approach to the educational system, about which most of them know very little, and seize avidly on every condemnatory report which is published and never pay the slightest attention to the workings of the system in general? It would do them all good to study the primary sector system, because they would then discover that it is the pride and joy of international education.

Miss Jackson: I fear even more the results of Conservative Members having studied published works. In spite of their claims about the efficacy of past education, when presumably they were at school, their dislike of present standards of education does not lead them to draw sensible conclusions and the standards which they apply in judging the findings of published reports is such that they wildly extrapolate anything that seems to convey their own prejudices in a way that makes people quail.

Comprehensive Schools (Parental Choice)

Mr. Dodsworth: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many parents will be unable to send their children to the comprehensive school of their first choice in the forthcoming academic year.

Miss Margaret Jackson: The Department does not normally receive this information from local education authorities, and in any event it is too early to say what the position will turn out to be next term because the allocations have not been completed in all cases.

Mr. Dodsworth: Will the hon. Lady take the opportunity to advise the Secretary of State to consult parents in the South-West Hertfordshire area who have failed to obtain a first choice for their children in comprehensive schools, with the result that they feel there is a diminishing influence among parents in terms of school choice? Will she ensure that the fullest opportunity is taken to restore the Watford Grammar School to a proper place in our educational system?

Miss Jackson: Such choice of school cases which have been passed to my Department are being carefully considered on all the facts at our command. We shall write to the hon. Gentleman as soon as a decision has been reached.

Mr. Noble: Is my hon. Friend aware that in Tameside 90 per cent. of parents have a first choice and that out of 800 children only 240 places can be allocated? Is she further aware that only 60 of those pupils who are so placed will be girls? In these circumstances, what does the Department propose to do to bring back real parental choice to Tameside as existed before the Tories were elected to power there?

Miss Jackson: I think that the final part of my hon. Friend's question is for my right hon. Friend later. It seems to me to be an excellent example of what is really meant by parental choice as evinced by Conservative Members.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: Will the Minister explain how it comes about that parents have their first choice if they then prefer

to choose a second school, having been given the option by the council?

Miss Jackson: I think that the hon. Gentleman does not really understand his own question. If parents are given a choice of school in a system which they know is intended to be comprehensive, it is a rather different matter from where parents have a choice of schools in a system which is divided between grammar and secondary modern schools, where, one presumes, the situation in the past was that less money was spent on secondary modern than on grammar schools.

Mr. Madden: Is my hon. Friend concerned at the proposal of the Tory-controlled Calderdale Council to reintroduce selection into Elland, in my constituency, where it was abolished 17 years ago, by proposing not to provide temporary accommodation for a temporary increase in the number of pupils wishing to attend Brooksbank School, thereby denying to parents the opportunity to send their children to this school and enforcing selection because their children must attend schools outside the area?

Miss Jackson: My hon. Friend knows that we on the Government side are very much opposed to selection with all its inaccuracies and difficulties, and that we believe in comprehensive education. Nevertheless, as my hon. Friend will know, many of these matters are very much within the power of local authorities to decide.

Teacher-Pupil Ratios

Mr. Luce: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what are the present staff-pupil ratios in primary and secondary schools.

Mr. Charles Morrison: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is the national average teacher-pupil ratio for the academic year 1975–76.

Miss Margaret Jackson: Definitive figures are not yet available, but preliminary estimates for January 1976 show that teacher-pupil ratios in maintained schools in England and Wales were then about 1 to 23·9 in primary schools and 1 to 17·0 in secondary schools, giving a


combined national average of about 1 to 20·3.

Mr. Luce: Since parents are very concerned about educational standards and about class sizes, does the hon. Lady accept that parents are increasingly concerned about the lack of balance in terms of priorities in education? Does she accept that many parents would be prepared to pay more for school meals and to obtain more resources with a view to reducing class size as a result?

Miss Jackson: The hon. Gentleman should know that the school meals subsidy is a national matter, whereas the amount spent on teacher employees and the number of teachers employed, are matters for local education authorities. There is no simple balance between one and the other.
Where money is given to local education authorities for current expenditure through the rate support grant, it is within the discretion of the authorities to decide whether that money is spent on education. It is certainly within their discretion to decide whether it should be spent on the employment of teachers as opposed to other priorities within the education system. If my right hon. Friend were to raise the price of school meals, this would not necessarily have any direct effect on the employment of teachers.

Mr. R. C. Mitchell: Will my hon. Friend ensure that, despite any restrictions on public expenditure, there will be no significant worsening in the pupil-teacher ratio? Will she suggest to local authorities that if they want to make cuts in education they should start by looking at administration costs, which have been grossly swollen since local government reorganisation was pushed through the House by the Conservative Government?

Miss Jackson: There is a great deal in what my hon. Friend has said. The rate support grant settlement was based on the assumption by my Department that local authorities would maintain their existing staffing ratios. Where they make other cuts is a matter for them.

Mr. Charles Morrison: On 14th July the Secretary of State urged local authorities to set up part-time courses, three days a week, for 16-year-olds, to help cope with the youth unemployment problem. What effect will that have on the

teacher-pupil ratio? Has any estimate been made of cost? If the costs increase, how are local education authorities to find the money?

Miss Jackson: I am not sure that it will have any effect specifically on the teacher-pupil ratio. The aim of the 16–19 provision was partly to deal with children who might not be willing to stay on at school or were not interested in doing so. I do not think it can have any direct effect such as the hon. Gentleman is suggesting.

Mr. Edwin Wainwright: Will my hon. Friend give the figures for teacher-pupil ratio north of the Trent and south of the Trent? Concerning school meals, will she treat with indifference the supplementary question put by the hon. Member for Shoreham (Mr. Luce)? If we put up the price of children's meals, a good many children of poor families will not be able to afford them and will therefore go without their main meal of the day.

Miss Jackson: As my hon. Friend knows, I have already dealt with that supplementary question by the hon. Member for Shoreham (Mr. Luce) concerning school meals. I cannot offhand give my hon. Friend the pupil-teacher ratios north and south of the Trent, but I shall write to him with that information.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Although the pupil-teacher ratio is of the utmost importance, does not the Under-Secretary agree that the quality of teachers is even more important? Will she tell the House what the Department is doing to improve the quality of young persons coming into the teaching profession?

Miss Jackson: I am not quite sure what the hon. Gentleman would have us do. We are certainly doing our utmost to see that people accepted for training as teachers are suited for such training. As the hon. Gentleman knows, it is always the case, in a difficult employment situation, that perhaps those who do a little better get jobs more easily than those who have less high qualifications. But it is, I am sure, the case that most of our teaching force are people of a very high quality. It is to be regretted that we are not able to employ more of them in our schools at the moment rather than make the assumption—which I recognise is common to the Conservative Party—that


those who are successful deserve to be so and that the others are automatically failures.

Dr. Boyson: Although I recognise the importance of the pupil-teacher ratio, may I ask the hon. Lady whether she is aware that there has been a fall of 25 per cent. in the average number of pupils per teacher in the last 25 years? Is she further aware that it was hoped that this would lead to an increase in education standards but that this has not happened? Does not this indicate that the quality of teachers and also the assessment of teaching method are equally as important as pupil-teacher ratios?

Miss Jackson: I am well aware that the hon. Gentleman is only too willing to seize on any piece of evidence, however unrelated, to try to prove his assumption that methods of teaching and the results of teaching in schools are getting worse. But I know of no statistical and objective evidence to support the contention that the hon. Gentleman is putting forward not only today but continually. He is always willing to draw very sweeping conclusions from evidence which does not necessarily point in the direction that he suggests.

Unemployed School Leavers (Training)

Mr. Hooley: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will have discussions with local authorities with a view to bringing about an increase in the staff of further education colleges so as to provide greater training facilities for unemployed school leavers in September 1976.

Mr. Mulley: No, Sir. The Government have made provision in the rate support grant settlement for 1976–77 to take account of some increase in staffing to match the forecast growth in the number of students, and the Training Services Agency provides additional resources for training facilities at colleges in appropriate cases. It is for the local authorities to decide whether additional staff are needed at particular colleges to provide greater training facilities.

Mr. Hooley: Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that the co-ordination between the Training Services Agency and the further education colleges makes the

most efficient use of the manpower we possess and are prepared to pay for in order to alleviate the problem of youth unemployment?

Mr. Mulley: I think there is a good relationship between the TSA and the local authorities, but, as my hon. Friend will realise, in any event I have no power to make any direct payments to local authorities for particular purposes. The rate support grant settlement would, of course, be a very blunt instrument for what my hon. Friend has in mind. Naturally, if he has any particular problems and lets me know about them, I shall take them up with the TSA.

Young People

Mr. Steen: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement as to any future policy initiatives he is considering with regard to young people within his remit, excluding the establishment of committees composed principally of officials.

Mr. Gerry Fowler: My right hon. Friend has no statement to make at the present time.

Mr. Steen: Does the Minister agree that the appalling track record of the youth department, coupled with his own lack of interest in and sympathy with the needs and plight of young people, surely deserves an entry in the Guinness Book of Records?

Mr. Fowler: I really do not understand the purpose of the hon. Gentleman's question, save possibly to be insulting. I am at least establishing a national youth forum. It was the hon. Gentleman's right hon. Friend, as a member of the Conservative Administration, who abolished the old National Consultative Council. I am ensuring that it will have at least one-third of its permanent membership composed of young people under the age of 26. That is great progress by the standards of the past.

Examinations (Schools Council's Proposals)

Mr. Lane: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he will make a statement about the Schools Council's proposal of a single examination to replace GCE and CSE.

Mr. Mulley: The Schools Council recommended to me on 8th July that I should approve the establishment of a common system of examining at 16-plus. I am considering the recommendation but cannot at this stage give an indication of when I shall reach conclusions. As I said in my reply on 6th July to the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Arnold), the Schools Council recommendations are of very great importance and it will not be practicable or desirable to reach immediate decisions about them.

Mr. Lane: I am sure that we all welcome the Secretary of State's caution. However, will he look very critically and warily at this proposal in view of the considerable hostility it has aroused already? On this issue at least, will he take a firm stand for academic standards as the paramount consideration in reaching a decision?

Mr. Mulley: I understand the hon. Member's point of view, but on the one hand to commend me to a course of caution and on the other to commit me to a proposition is not wholly consistent.

Mr. Hardy: Will my right hon. Friend be cautious from another point of view and ensure that there is no neglect of the third mode—the school-based mode—which in the present CSE system has been developed so successfully in South Yorkshire?

Mr. Mulley: The proposal suggests that modes 1, 2 and 3 should all be used in any examination system.

Mr. Neubert: Does the Secretary of State agree with the recent comment by a leading headmaster that examinations are a test not only of those who take them but also of those who teach? Perhaps this is the reason for the growing disfavour with which examinations are regarded.

Mr. Mulley: I have no particular affection for examinations. If a body puts proposals before me, I shall examine them. There is much to be said for some reform of the present system. I should, however, be allowed a little time to consider these proposals, because my predecessor in the Conservative Government, the present Leader of the Opposition, took 13 months to reply to a suggestion about the number of grades of A-levels.

Mr. Spearing: Whatever conclusion my right hon. Friend reaches, does he agree that any examination at 16 is a very poor guide to the skills, attainments, aptitudes or abilities of an individual, let alone his prospects for the future? Does my right hon. Friend agree that employers should take more note of an employee's skills and aptitudes rather than rely specifically on this subjective form of testing?

Mr. Mulley: I agree that one should not attach undue importance to examinations. However, from the point of view of motivation of the pupil and the need for sonic sort of assessment, there is unanimous agreement that there should be some kind of examination system. The question we must consider is how best it can be devised and administered.

Mr. Cope: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has received from the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals following the Schools Council's proposals to scrap the GCE O-level and CSE examinations.

Mr. Macfarlane: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has received from industrialists concerning the Schools Council proposal to scrap the GCE O-level and the CSE examinations.

Mr. Freud: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has had regarding the replacement of CSE and O-level by a single examination.

Mr. Mulley: I have received 70 letters about the Schools Council recommendations on a common system of examining at 16-plus. Of these, three are from industrial interests. In general, my replies have assured correspondents that their representations will be borne in mind. The Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals has not made direct representations to me but has sent me a copy of a statement which it has made to the Schools Council.

Mr. Cope: Will the Secretary of State try to educate his Minister of State into the view that as far as university entrance is concerned it is one of the facts of life that selection cannot be eliminated and,


therefore, there will be failures? It is only a question of how best one can measure selection and decide who are the failures.

Mr. Mulley: That is a very interesting piece of philosophy, but it does not fit in with the correspondence I have received about the 16-plus examination.

Mr. Christopher Price: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, although there is disagreement about the detailed application of any new system of administration of this examination, there is widespread agreement among all sections of the educational movement that a common system of examination is necessary because of the dreadful expense, overlap and waste of public money that is going on under the present system? Does he also agree—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We are due to rise on Friday.

Mr. Mulley: There is a great deal in what my hon. Friend says about a common system examination, but I shall not come to a view on it before we rise on Friday.

Mr. Adley: Is the Secretary of State aware that, if present trends continue and all these fashionable views continue to pour forth from such bodies, we shall have children claiming social security at five and pensions at 16?

Mr. Mulley: I have heard the hon. Gentleman to better advantage than he is showing this afternoon. As a matter of history, the Schools Council was established by a Conservative administration.

Schools (Administrative Posts)

Mr. Beith: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he will issue a circular to education authorities advising them to avoid the proliferation in schools of posts and special allowances related to administrative duties rather than teaching responsibilities, particularly in the context of secondary reorganisation.

Mr. Mulley: No. It is for local education authorities to decide, within the limits prescribed by the Burnham Committee, the number of promoted posts in schools and the duties attached to them.

Mr. Beith: Does not the Burnham Committee have a lot to answer for in this respect? Does the Secretary of State recognise that dedicated teachers find that it is to their financial disadvantage to concentrate their efforts in the classroom? They find that it is more rewarding to be year tutors, the person in charge of the resources centre or the person in charge of the library. Will he accept that teaching is being downgraded financially in favour of administration?

Mr. Mulley: There is a good deal in what the hon. Member says. However, he is inviting me to make a far more radical change in the relationship between central and local government than I have so far contemplated.

Mr. Cryer: Is it not a fact that the present promotion system has the effect of taking teachers out of the classroom and putting them into the administrative section? Is it not the duty of the Department to negotiate a better system with the unions concerned so that much greater emphasis is placed on teaching and there is some form of democratic administration in schools, with a diminution in the headmaster's powers and a greater emphasis on those of the teachers?

Mr. Mulley: All these problems should be the first concern of the teachers' unions and those who are party to the arrangements. I am not party to them and I do not employ teachers. However, I shall convey my hon. Friend's views to those who are concerned with this matter.

Schools Council

Mr. Sims: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will disband the Schools Council.

Miss Margaret Jackson: This issue was debated at length in this House on 21st July. My right hon. Friend welcomed the withdrawal of the amendment to the Education Bill which sought to discontinue the Schools Council.

Mr. Sims: Does the hon. Lady accept that, whatever might be the obvious advantages of having an independent body such as the Schools Council to give advice, the proposals that the council has put forward in recent years, particularly


those relating to the existing examination structure and its future, have led to a loss of confidence in that body by one of the most important elements in the education structure—namely, the parents?

Miss Jackson: The hon. Member is making a sweeping assumption. He is concentrating on one aspect of the Schools Council work—that of examinations. I am not aware of any evidence of gross dissatisfaction among parents with the present system such as he outlines. Certainly there are other aspects of the council's work. It gives advice to my right hon. Friend and to teachers on aspects of the curriculum and it produces all kinds of information to assist teachers. In this aspect of its work it is of great value to schools. Hon. Gentlemen opposite are too fond of concentrating on one aspect of the council's work and criticising it in a very ill-informed way.

Mr. Flannery: Once again, Opposition Members are trying to destroy the Schools Council. That is characteristic of the way they behave. They want to destroy a great deal of our educational system. The statement made by the hon. Member that the council has lost the support of parents is absolute nonsense. The Schools Council is a valuable body which takes account of what is happening in education—unlike hon. Members opposite—and endeavours to advise my right hon. Friend on the best way to advance education.

Miss Jackson: It was notable in the debate we had on this matter on the Education Bill that hon. Members opposite sought to have the Schools Council abolished but had no proposals about what should be put in its place.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: Does the hon. Lady recognise that there is a need for reform of the composition of the Schools Council? Will she recommend this course to her right hon. Friend so that the customers of the education service—the representatives of industry, the trade unions, commerce and the professions—are better represented on the council? Education is too important to be left to educationalists alone.

Miss Jackson: The hon. Member was either not listening or he has a very bad memory. When we debated this matter, I made it plain that reform of

the membership of the council was under consideration.

Old Primary Schools

Mr. Montgomery: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many children aged between five and nine years are currently attending schools which were built before 1870.

Miss Margaret Jackson: It is estimated that about 1 million children aged from five to nine years are in schools with some or all of their teaching accommodation dating from before 1903. It is not known how many of these are in buildings dating from before 1870.

Mr. Montgomery: That is a terrible indictment. Would it not be better by far, if the Government were serious about giving equal opportunity in education, for them to spend more money on trying to improve these schools rather than squander money on forcing through comprehensive education against the wishes of the local authorities?

Miss Jackson: The hon. Gentleman knows very well that, fortunately or not, we have not squandered and are not squandering money on introducing comprehensive education. Furthermore, if the failure to replace primary schools dating from 1870 or 1903 is an indictment, it is an indictment of successive Governments and not merely of this Government.

Mr. Lipton: Is my hon. Friend aware that many of us attended educational institutions built long before 1870 and that we have finished up here none the less?

Miss Jackson: I am not quite sure what conclusions my hon. Friend would wish me to draw from his statement. Certainly I agree that the age of buildings does not necessarily relate to the quality of education provided therein. I have always understood that many Conservatives, when discussing public schools and grammar schools, place great emphasis on the length of time that the establishment has been in existence and upon the age of the building.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: Will the Under-Secretary try to persuade the Derbyshire County Council that it is better to spend £2 million to bring up to date many of


the schools dating from before this century than to try to impose comprehensive education against the wishes of the parents in Derbyshire?

Miss Jackson: I understand that the authority in Derbyshire is doing and has done what it can to improve the primary schools there. I am well aware that it has a particular problem, as has been drawn to my attention by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner). I am not aware that the authority is spending so much on comprehensive education that it would be possible for it, by redirecting resources, to improve overnight all the primary schools which present these problems.

Comprehensive Education

Mr. Forman: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many local authorities have not yet submitted plans to his Department for the introduction of comprehensive secondary education.

Mr. Gerry Fowler: One authority has not submitted proposals for the introduction of comprehensive education in any part of its area. Six others have not yet indicated their intention to end all selection and introduce a fully comprehensive pattern throughout their areas.

Mr. Forman: Is the Minister aware that local education authorities which have not yet submitted their proposals are merely trying to stand out against imposed uniformity from the Labour Government? Is he further aware that they are doing so with the full support of the European Convention on Human Rights, which his Government have just signed, and with the full support of parents throughout the country?

Mr. Fowler: But not with the full support of this House, since it gave a Third Reading recently to the Education Bill.

Mr. Raphael Tuck: Is my hon. Friend aware that it is reported that the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) has stated that if the decision over Tameside were reversed by legislation it would probably be challenged in the courts? Does that not call into question the authority of Parliament?

Mr. Fowler: I agree with my hon. Friend if that comment were made. The remark has escaped my attention, as does so much that is said by the hon. Gentleman.

Sir J. Eden: Does not the Minister agree that it would be premature for local authorities to submit plans for reorganisation unless the Secretary of State can first guarantee that the necessary resources for such reorganisation will be made available?

Mr. Fowler: No. It is always better if one is embarking on a journey to have a map and to know one's destination. That is what planning is all about.

Mrs. Millie Miller: Is my hon. Friend aware of the great distress that is being caused to many parents and children at this time by the activities of the Tory Redbridge Council, which is insisting on retaining only two grammar schools in its area and upon imposing unsatisfactory selection methods in its comprehensive system of education?

Mr. Fowler: Yes, I am aware of that. It reflects a doctrine commonly advanced by the Conservatives that it is possible to have selection and non-selection coexisting. That is a logical contradiction, not a practical one.

Dr. Boyson: If the Government were convinced of the true merit of comprehensive schools, should there not be an inquiry into the results of existing schools to convince the sceptics that the Government are right, instead of the Government driving headlong onwards as at present, which will cause revolt against existing comprehensive schools?

Mr. Fowler: The hon. Gentleman never misses a chance to knock our education system. I do not remember a cry from the Conservative Benches for an inquiry into the standards of grammar schools. Some small country grammar schools had very poor results, as the hon. Member knows. He did not ask for an inquiry into them. He knows, equally, the difficulties of inquiring into educational attainment at schools which are called comprehensive but which are creamed by the persistence of selection in many Tory authorities.

Oral Answers to Questions — CROYDON

Mr. Aitken: asked the Prime Minister if he will make an official visit to Croydon.

The Prime Minister (Mr. James Callaghan): I have at present no plans to do so.

Mr. Aitken: Will the Prime Minister make a special visit to the headquarters of the Home Office Immigration Department at Croydon in order to resolve the growing uncertainty and confusion about dependants? In particular, does he realise that, as long as the Government remain unable clearly to define and give an accurate estimate of the number of Commonswealth dependants who are entitled to come here, their immigration policy will remain a chaotic and contentious shambles?

The Prime Minister: No, I do not accept that. It is necessary that there should be a clear understanding of the principles and conditions under which immigrants may come to this country. The rules are pretty clear, although they are somewhat complicated in certain circumstances. I have always taken the view, and I continue to take it, as do the Government as a whole, that the numbers entering are an important element of racial harmony. As for the possible creation of a dependants' register, as the hon. Member will know Lord Franks is looking into the feasibility of the idea as a means of estimating the numbers who have still to come here. I suggest that the hon. Member waits for the result of that report.

Mr. Bidwell: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the pressures that are currently emanating from Tory backwoodsmen like the hon. Member for Thanet, East (Mr. Aitken)? They should not be allowed to lead to needless harassment at our ports of coloured people who are seeking to come here quite legitimately, either under the 1971 immigration rules as passed by the Conservatives or for genuine visits on the occasion of family bereavements, weddings and so on.

The Prime Minister: Having read some of the hon. Member's previous contributions on this matter, I have the

feeling that he was more concerned this afternoon to make a party point than to harass immigrants. The consequences of making this party point, however, may be to raise tension, and the hon. Gentleman should keep that in mind. This is especially so because it is clear that there is a great deal of uncertainty among people who do not know their way around about the rules which are administered at Croydon. It is the job of the House to explain the rules to those who wish to come here and to tell them whether they satisfy the conditions. As regards those already here, having seen the way in which some immigrants apply themselves—especially the Asian business people—I wish that some of our native-born people would do the same.

Mr. John Moore: Is the Prime Minister aware how distressed I am that he is not able to visit my constituency? If he is able to visit Croydon in future, will he assure the Conservative councillors who run the town's finances so responsibly and who have reduced their budgets in accordance with the Government's request, that they will not be made to suffer because of spendthrift Socialist councils like Camden?

The Prime Minister: That is rather a switch in topic—the same geographical location, but a different subject. As regards the financial aspects of local authorities, I do not think that it is possible to divide them as the hon. Gentleman has done. The Government do not have control over local government current expenditure and it would not be right, certainly during this year, to discriminate between those who have tried to keep within the agreed limits and those who have not.

Mr. Cyril Smith: If the Prime Minister visits Croydon, will he inform the Home Office staff there of the view of some hon. Members on this side of the House that a man whose skin is black is as entitled to spend his life with his family as is a man whose skin is white?

The Prime Minister: I have found from my experience of Home Office officials before they went to Croydon—and I am sure this is still true—that they acknowledge that principle. It is a principle that I should like to see acknowledged by all Opposition Members.

Mrs. Thatcher: May I ask the Prime Minister to reconsider some of his totally unjustified remarks to my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, East (Mr. Aitken)? Does he not recollect that my hon. Friend initiated in a very constructive way a debate on immigration in Private Members' time? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in raising this question my hon. Friend raised the very real worry which most people feel because they are perturbed about the numbers who may be entitled to come here? Does not the Prime Minister recognise that until this is resolved their worries will continue?

The Prime Minister: I have no need to reconsider what I said. If anything, I thought I was letting off the hon. Member for Thanet, East (Mr. Aitken) rather lightly. I assumed that his principal object was to attack the Government and not immigrants. I read at lunchtime today the speech made by the hon. Member in the debate to which the right hon. Lady refers. That was why I made the comments I did. His speech was in marked contrast in moderation and nature to the supplementary question that he put today. That is why I am trying to be fair to him.
It is important for us all that there should be well-understood conditions of entry and that the numbers who enter should be limited to those who meet those conditions. [HON. MEMBERS: "How many?"] When they have properly entered, the people concerned should be entitled to live here in the same way as the rest of the community.

Mrs. Thatcher: What is party political about asking the Government to give the facts on the number of dependants entitled to come here?

The Prime Minister: There is nothing party political about that. I am sure that the hon. Member for Thanet, East is well able to look after himself, but no doubt he will be happy to have the maternal protection of the Leader of the Opposition. There is nothing objectionable about answering a question on numbers. [Interruption.] I wish that the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) would be quiet for a moment. We are not on points of order now. The House knows that the question of a dependants' register is being properly examined by Lord Franks, and I suggest

that we should wait for the results of that examination.

Mr. Aitken: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER (ENGAGEMENTS)

Mr. Peter Morrison: asked the Prime Minister what are his official engagements for 3rd August.

The Prime Minister: I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet this morning and will be holding other meetings throughout the day.

Mr. Morrison: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, whatever his official engagements today, I wish him a very pleasant holiday free of such official engagements? For those of us taking our holidays at the end of September, can he give an assurance that he will not be calling an early General Election and wrecking our plans?

The Prime Minister: I am grateful for the hon. Member's good wishes, which I reciprocate. As for his comments about the end of September, I suggest that he should cultivate his constituency a little carefully.

Mr. Raphael Tuck: Will my right hon. Friend make it a resolution for today to inform the country that, as the CBI treacherously stabbed him in the back after he extended the hand of friendship it is more important than ever vigorously to pursue industrial investment through organisations like the NEB?

The Prime Minister: From my discussions with Lord Watkinson, it is clear that on the second occasion when I saw him he was accurately reflecting the views of CBI members who were deeply upset by the imposition of increased national insurance contributions. However, it is also clear that Lord Watkinson is anxious that relations between the Government and the CBI should not be exacerbated.
I was very glad to see today that the CBI's forecast of investment intentions shows that they are still improving, Figures due to be published today—I am


sure that the Opposition will be pleased to hear this—indicate an increase in the volume of investment to be undertaken by British industries of between 10 and 15 per cent. in the 12 months to September 1977, compared with the previous 12 months.

Mr. Lawson: In the context of investment intentions, will the right hon. Gentleman give a straight answer to a straight question and say whether the Government are committed to the introduction of a wealth tax in the next Session of Parliament?

The Prime Minister: I suggest that the hon. Gentleman should await the Queen's Speech.

Mr. Ron Thomas: Will my right hon. Friend be good enough to spare a few moments in his very busy day to look at the up-to-date figures of increasing penetration of finished and semi-finished manufactured goods, the outflow from our capital account and the increased cost of our military expenditure overseas, with a view to providing alternative policies?

The Prime Minister: All these matters are of considerable importance. During recent years there has been a growing import penetration by overseas goods, especially from Germany, which does not reflect well on the capacity of our own industries to sustain competition. Our overseas military expenditure has grown substantially because of the relative decline in the offset arrangements with Germany which occurred between 1970 and 1974. We shall have to take up this matter in due course in order to get a better acknowledgement of the mutual advantage received by both NATO and the United Kingdom from the present arrangement.

Mr. Montgomery: Does not the Prime Minister feel that perhaps today he could spare some time for the Parliamentary Labour Party, to teach some of its Members the facts of life, particularly as regards who was to blame for bringing sick Members to vote in the House last week? In view of the charges made against my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, will the right hon. Gentleman tell his Friends that the Liberal Party offered to pair with very

sick Members and that the hon. Member for Batley and Morley (Sir A. Broughton) wishes to resign but that the Labour Party will not let him? Will the right hon. Gentleman also put the blame where it firmly belongs, with his right hon. Friend the Government Chief Whip?

The Prime Minister: I am not sure how much of that question is worth a reply. I have yet to learn that any hon. Member is unable to apply for the Chiltern Hundreds as a result of the activities of either Chief Whip, if he wishes to do so. I am not sure how relevant that matter is.
As for arrangements for sick Members, I went to the Parliamentary Labour Party meeting last Thursday and listened to a very interesting discussion—I am sure that the Opposition will be interested to hear this—about the arrangements that should be made in order to avoid bringing sick Members to the House. I hope that at an appropriate opportunity there will be the prospect of discussions between the two sides of the House in order to avoid these problems.

Mr. Swain: Will my right hon. Friend consider rearranging his programme for this Saturday? In my village we are holding a village gala, at which one of the highlights is the burning of an effigy of the Iron Maiden.

Oral Answers to Questions — TAMESIDE (SECONDARY EDUCATION)

Mr. St. John-Stevas: (by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he will make a statement following the decision of the House of Lords in the Tameside case.

The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Frederick Mulley): I explained to the House on 11th June my view of the arrangements proposed by Tameside, and on that day I issued my direction to the authority to go ahead with the original approved scheme for secondary education in September. The House of Lords has now given its ruling on the legality of that direction and I accept, without any reservations whatsoever, that decision from the highest court of law in the land.
The effect of the Lords decision is that my direction of 11th June no longer stands. Tameside is therefore under no legal obligation to implement the proposals which I approved last November. It is for Tameside to decide what now has to be done to achieve the most orderly possible start to the new school year in September, having regard to all the circumstances. My first concern throughout has been the educational welfare of the children caught up in that crisis, and I trust that all the parties involved will make that their first priority in the future.
I do not think that any further comment from me would be appropriate at this stage.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: Now that the legal issues in the Tameside case have been finally and somewhat expensively decided, does the Secretary of State agree that what is important now is the education of the children of Tameside? To that end, will he seek to persuade those teachers who are in conflict with the council to forget the past and to do their best to make the selection procedure a success? Will he also place the resources of his Department at the service of the council in order to make this selection process successful? Will he, in fact, now abandon his ideological prepossessions and act, as is his duty as Secretary of State, to safeguard the educational interests of the children there?

Mr. Mulley: Let me make one point clear. It is not only a matter of putting the educational interests of the children first now. This was very much in my mind on 11th June. One thing that has been common to all the legal decision—and indeed I made it quite clear in the House in answer to the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson)—is that this is not a dispute about whether comprehensive or selective education is right. It is about the arrangements proposed by the Tameside authority, and the shortage of time involved.
As to the dispute between the teachers, it was declared official, I think, in the middle of May, and a great many of the problems arose from the decision of the council unilaterally to cancel the conciliation arrangements. I would imagine that if the parties got together now they could probably resolve their difficulties.

It is essentially a matter for the parties concerned.
As to the resources—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Brittan) had much to say as second fiddle in the court case and perhaps he should contain himself now and listen to me for a moment. As to the assistance of the Department, my Department, as always, is ready to give what assistance it can and is requested to give to any authority to carry out its statutory duties. Indeed, I offered to have talks with the Tameside authority early in May when these difficulties arose. However, for reasons that I accept, the authority was unwilling to do this.

Mr. Christopher Price: Does my right hon. Friend accent that the interpretation put on the law by the judges this year is wholly different from the interpretation put by the then Lord Chancellor, Lord Simon, when introducing Section 68 into the House of Lords in 1944? Does he agree that in acting in this way, in widening the law in this way, the Law Lords are in fact usurping the power of Parliament? Will my right hon. Friend support the Bill that I shall be introducing for its First Reading in a few moments to put the law back to the state it was proposed to be in when the Education Bill was introduced into this House in 1944?

Mr. Mulley: It would be wrong for me to comment on the reasons for the decisions in the House of Lords. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why?"] Because we have not got them yet and I understand that it may be some considerable time before the judgments of their Lordships are made available. As to my hon. Friend's Bill, I observed that he had given notice that he wished to introduce a Bill. I shall study it with very great interest.

Mr. Gow: As it was the unanimous view of the Court of Appeal and of the House of Lords that the Secretary of State had misdirected himself in this matter and that his own affidavit was less than frank, would not the only honourable course for the Minister to take now be to resign? Secondly, as the Minister appealed to the House of Lords against the advice of his own legal advisers, ought not he, rather than the taxpayer, to pay the costs of that appeal?

Mr. Mulley: The hon. Gentleman would be a little more convincing if he checked the facts on which he relies before making such sweeping allegations. Not only did I not make an affidavit—it is not the practice, I understand, for Ministers to do so—but I made it clear to those acting for Tameside that, if they wished, I was available for cross-examination in this matter.
As to the other allegations, I should also like to mention the fact that the matter was not entirely without doubt. The Lord Chief Justice, for example, gave a different version of the events. It has been suggested that it was only new evidence, put in very late and which clearly could not have been before me on 11th June, that had a bearing on subsequent decisions.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. There is another Private Notice Question, plus two major statements, plus a Ten Minutes Rule Bill, and a very heavy list of Bills under Orders of the Day.

LASSA FEVER

Mr. Anthony Grant: (by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what steps he has taken to contain the outbreak of Lassa fever; and if he will make a statement.

The Minister of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Dr. David Owen): My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State issued a statement yesterday. I will circulate this in the Official Report and copies are available in the Vote Office.
There is only one confirmed case. Three contacts of that case are in isolation and we shall not know the results of their tests for one to two weeks.
The possibility of Lassa fever cannot yet be ruled out in six other people who have recently returned from various parts of West Africa. It is expected that, with the current interest aroused in Lassa fever, further reports may arise. Another suspected case has already been shown to have malaria.
Regulations to make Lassa fever and rabies notifiable under public health legislation were laid before the House yesterday and come into force at midnight. I

am sure the House will agree that in the circumstances it was right to take these special steps to bring the legislation into effect without the customary waiting period.
I will ensure that all possible measures are taken to safeguard public health and will arrange to inform the House of major developments which occur before the recess.

Mr. Grant: Is the Minister aware that I wish the known victim a speedy recovery and hope that the other cases turn out to be negative? Does he recall that, following the tragic death of two of my constituents during the smallpox outbreak in 1973, when they caught the disease from a laboratory technician in a public ward, a subsequent committee of inquiry strongly criticised the method of dealing with dangerous diseases? As Lassa fever is believed to be twice as dangerous as smallpox, can he satisfy us that all the recommendations of that inquiry and of the subsequent working party under Sir George Godber were carried out?
In particular, was it wise for the first case known to have come from Nigeria to spend four days in a public ward and for the laboratory technician who handled the blood and urine samples merely to be sent home when she became ill? Since a year or more has passed since the Godber working party reported, why did the Government have to act in such panic to make this a notifiable disease, since it was stated in that report to be a disease dangerous to human beings?

Dr. Owen: On the last point, the question of the use of a statutory instrument has been under consultation since March. It has been important to proceed with the normal consultative process. All that we have speeded up is the parliamentary process, which would normally have lasted for three weeks. As to the Cox inquiry, most of the lessons of that inquiry into smallpox have been learned. There are one or two recommendations—one in particular—which would require amending legislation which has not been introduced. That is something which we shall have to consider, but I stress that powers to compel in these cases are very rarely used because in themselves they raise serious problems about putting people into closer contact with a very infectious disease.
As for the wisdom of the judgments in this case, my right hon. Friend has asked the Chief Medical Officer to reconvene the group of experts who advised him on Lassa fever in 1975 to investigate this case. They investigated the last case. I consider that an investigation by experts is the most productive form of inquiry in a case such as this. Lassa fever is extremely rare and knowledge of it is still being built up. As to wisdom and any criticisms which may be made, it is a common experience in medical practice that one often learns from the past. Retrospective wisdom is very easy and most doctors would recognise that we have all a good deal to learn about how we deal with Lassa fever.

Mr. Greville Janner: Is my right hon. Friend considering whether there are not other diseases which should be made notifiable so that we do not again run into this sort of situation, in which the Government have been forced to take this very proper but unfortunately necessary action?

Dr. Owen: I do not think there are. One has constantly to bear in mind that there are new diseases coming up and there are some other virus infections, but I stress that most of the powers which are necessary are already held. These are exceptional powers which are rarely used. In the case which caused some of the controversy, I am glad to see that the person concerned agreed to go voluntarily to hospital. That was much easier for everybody handling the case. Most experience is that when such a matter is explained to people, they agree voluntarily to go into isolation.

Mr. Carlisle: Since one of the suspects is in my constituency, may I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman is satisfied in the light of existing medical knowledge that there are adequate facilities in the various isolation hospitals to deal with any cases?

Dr. Owen: That is one thing that we have been keeping under review for improvement. I would not say that I am totally satisfied that all the best facilities are available, and we are looking into that. There is a question whether one should concentrate these facilities in one centre nationally and to what extent one

should keep facilities available across the country. We have facilities which give broad cover for the nation as a whole. One needs to look at this matter in the light of all the experience of the cases, and I think that some improvements will probably need to be made.

Mrs. Wise: I thank my right hon. Friend for his prompt action in this situation. Will he give special consideration to the views which have been expressed by trade unionists working in the hospitals about whether hospital technicians, porters and other hospital workers are adequately protected in handling this and other dangerous diseases? Will he liaise with his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment in considering whether the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act is adequate in such situations?

Dr. Owen: The staff concerned have a legitimate view and it is open to them to put any of their views to the committee of experts under the chairmanship of the Chief Medical Officer. I am sure that any suggestions and criticisms will be gratefully received. As I have repeated several times, all of us have much to learn from these cases.

Dr. Vaughan: The whole House will wish to join the Minister in expressing concern over this illness and our deepest sympathy for the patients who may be affected. We fully support the steps that the right hon. Gentleman took yesterday. However, will he consider whether in cases of this kind it may be appropriate not to conceal the names of the suspected victims, since it may be of crucial importance to someone to know whether he has been in contact with a suspect?

Dr. Owen: That is a difficult question, which touches on the confidential relationship between doctor and patient, but I think that it needs to be looked at very carefully. In the light of what the hon. Gentleman has said, I undertake to do so. If one could get agreement from the patient, that would obviously be less objectionable than in another case. I undertake to look at it. I agree that when a general call is made to the public to volunteer if they develop any symptoms of the disease, it sometimes helps if they know the name of the patient. However, there are considerations to be borne in mind before we make a decision on that.

Following is the statement—

LASSA FEVER AND RABIES TO BE NOTIFIABLE

New Regulations come into force at midnight
Mr. David Ennals, Secretary of State for Social Services, and Mr. John Morris, Secretary of State for Wales, today made Regulations making Lassa fever and rabies notifiable diseases under the Public Health Acts.
The new Regulations, which come into operation at midnight tonight, give Medical Officers of Environmental Health dealing with cases or suspected cases of these diseases powers which they already have for the control of other serious infectious diseases such as smallpox. These include power to apply to a magistrate to order the removal to hospital of persons suffering from such diseases and the medical examination of suspects. In the case of Lassa fever adequate examination and the taking of test samples can safely be carried out only in a suitable hospital.
The present incident concerns an engineer who had been ill in Nigeria and returned to this country on 25th June for convalesence. On 12th July he was admitted to St. Mary's Hospital, London for investigation and in view of the possibility of Lassa fever was transferred on 16th July to the isolation unit at Coppetts Wood Isolation Hospital in North London. The complement fixation test for Lassa fever proved negative and he was discharged to his home in Sheffield on 19th July. On 26th July the Microbiological Research Establishment at Porton completed tests on specimens sent to them and isolated Lassa fever virus.
Arrangements were at once made for the man to be re-admitted to Coppetts Wood, and for contacts to be traced and placed under surveillance. Medical Officers for Environmental Health were alerted and a Press Notice issued on 27th July advising persons who had visited the George Bird Ward at St. Mary's during 12—16th July to report any feverish illness developing in the following 10 days. Currently, three persons who were in contact with the patient in the period in question have developed symptoms which could be relevant and have been moved into isolation, one in Manchester and two at Coppetts Wood, while tests are made. It is far from certain that they are suffering from Lassa fever but, because of the nature of the disease, it is necessary on public health grounds to take full precautions.
One of these three contacts, a laboratory technician, was at first unwilling to go into hospital despite medical advice that tests were necessary to establish whether or not she had contracted the disease. She is now in Coppetts Wood Isolation Hospital, Muswell Hill.
The process of control by tracing contacts and placing them under surveillance is continuing. A contact who was being sought while on holiday in Devon has now been traced and is under surveillance.
The Department of Health and Social Security has been informed today of three people recently returned from Nigeria who have developed feverish symptoms. They are under

surveillance but there is no apparent connection with the one identified case of Lassa fever.
There have hitherto been only two confirmed cases in this country of Lassa fever. In both these cases the disease was contracted in West Africa. Following the second of them, early in 1975, the Chief Medical Officer convened an expert group to consider what was needed for the care of persons suffering from, or suspected to be suffering from, Lassa fever and to protect public health. A memorandum based on their advice has been widely circulated in draft preparatory to early general issue to doctors. Mr. Ennals has asked the Chief Medical Officer to reconvene a group of experts to consider, in the light of the current incident, whether changes are needed in the advice received last year.

YOUTH EMPLOYMENT

The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Albert Booth): My right hon. Friend, the Chancellor of the Exchequer said in his statement on 22nd July that we should be announcing before the recess further measures to help with the serious problem of unemployment among young people.
We have already taken a number of steps with this end in view—the recruitment subsidy for school leavers, the job creation programme, the expansion of community industry, increases in training and the strengthening of the careers service. We estimate that these measures will be helping as many as 100,000 young people this autumn. Even so, in present circumstances young people reaching school leaving age who have no job to go to would be well advised to consider staying in the education system, and those who have left and have not been able to find a job would do well to consider continuing their education.
More now needs to be done and the Government have decided to take further action. Most of the summer school leavers may be expected to start work this autumn in the ordinary way, but there will be many—particularly those who have already been unemployed for some time—who will not find it easy to get jobs. It is to them that particular help needs to be directed.
The first of the new measures is, therefore, to replace the £5 recruitment subsidy for school leavers, which ends on 30th September, by a new youth employment subsidy of £10 a week, which will be paid for up to six months to any private sector or nationalised industry employer


recruiting a young person under 20 who has been registered as continuously unemployed for six months or more. The scheme will be limited to engagements during the six months from 1st October 1976 to 31st March 1977.
The present subsidy has been paid in respect of 29,000 school leavers, but our experience of the scheme suggests that better results are likely to be achieved by concentrating the subsidy on all longer-term unemployed young people. The cost is estimated at £5·4 million for the six months that the new scheme will run and the numbers assisted are likely to be as great as those who have been helped by the present scheme.
Secondly, the Training Services Agency offers a range of training courses for young people below skilled level which are specifically directed towards the needs of unemployed young people. The Manpower Services Commission has decided that it will be possible to increase the number of young people completing these courses by a further 3,000 during 1976 and to do this within its existing programme.
Thirdly, the Manpower Services Commission is urgently working out arrangements for a work experience programme designed to give young people a realistic introduction to the requirements, disciplines and satisfactions of working life. The CBI and TUC have indicated their full support for a programme of that kind, subject of course to the practical arrangements being worked out satisfactorily. Projects would be provided by employers—including the nationalised industries—but the costs of allowances to the young people concerned, which would be linked to the Training Services Agency's allowances to young trainees, would be met by the commission. Opportunities for training and further education would be incorporated into projects to the maximum extent possible, and there would be consultation with individual local authorities to that end.
It would be essential to ensure that projects did not in any way displace normal recruitment of trainees. Employers would be required to give an undertaking to that effect and their proposals would have to have the agreement of trade union representatives in their organisations. The programme would

be open to unemployed young people in the 16 to 18 age group who would benefit from an opportunity to learn about working life at first hand and gain systematic practical experience of a range of different tasks. It is difficult to estimate precisely how many young people might benefit from the programme, though perhaps 30,000 would do so and I should welcome it if that number were exceeded. The programme would be additional to and separate from the job creation programme and from Community Industry. Subject to the outcome of current work and consultations on the practical arrangements, the commission would aim to launch the scheme in September, have it open for applications by employers until the end of March 1977 and have all schemes completed by the end of September 1977.
The Government welcome the support of the TUC and CBI for this important new proposal, the aims of which are in line with suggestions made from a number of quarters, including voluntary organisations and careers officers. We are willing in principle to provide the necessary funds to cover the cost of the allowances and the commission's administration of the scheme once the commission has completed its planning and consultations successfully. The cost is estimated at £19 million, of which about half is expected to be offset by savings on unemployment and supplementary benefits.
In reaching these decisions on expanded training and the proposed work experience programme the Government have taken into account the possibility of assistance from the European Social Fund, which gives a high priority to new methods of helping unemployed young people who have never had a job to fit themselves for work. The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland will be announcing corresponding measures to be taken in Northern Ireland.
Taken together, these new measures should help about 60,000 young people to obtain jobs, training or work experience in the course of the next 12 months. These would be additional to the many young people who will be assisted under existing schemes.
In addition to these immediate measures, the Government are urgently


considering whether a scheme can be devised to enable older workers who are very close to pensionable age to leave employment and so release jobs for younger unemployed people. They would then receive an allowance from the Government until they reached normal pensionable age. This would be on the condition that the employer undertook to recruit a replacement from the unemployment register and that the worker released did not enter further employment or claim unemployment benefit while in receipt of the allowance. A scheme might last for six months and be concentrated on the assisted areas, which account for 75 per cent. of unemployment in the country. There are substantial difficulties about the operation of such a scheme and it is not certain that practicable and cost-effective arrangements can be worked out. The Government will be consulting the TUC and CBI on the matter and will report to the House in due course.
As a result of the renewed growth of output with the development of the Government's economic and industrial strategy we should see unemployment begin to move down later this year. The level of unemployment among young people, however, is now so high that we consider it socially and economically necessary to introduce these further temporary and selective measures in order to ease the transition. It would be wrong to leave so many young people to suffer long periods of unemployment at the beginning of their careers when much can be done to help them obtain jobs, training or useful work experience. I trust that the House will welcome these measures with that end in view.

Mr. Prior: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that of course we welcome any steps that will help with the problem of youth unemployment and that we believe that the schemes that he has announced today will mean a great deal to those who are able to be helped? To that extent we give him our 100 per cent. support. We also support the voluntary organisations that will take on additional young people this summer and winter, because the number of young people who are unemployed is very serious. The House will know that the total of young people under 20 years of age who are now unemployed is probably about

500,000 and the House will wish to consider the matter seriously.
We believe that, rather than short-term piecemeal plans, a long-term plan is now required to solve the problems that we shall have to face in the next few years. Our criticism of the Government is that they are dealing with the whole problem on a short-term basis. Too many of the schemes are for a few months or merely replace existing schemes and are not based on any long-term plan. We consider that it is necessary to have greater work experience, greater training and less costly schemes of job creation.
Will the Minister confirm that one of the schemes that he announced today—that to replace the £5 scheme—will not provide 30,000 additional jobs but will merely take the place of 30,000 jobs available under existing schemes? Does he realise that the Opposition believe that the Government have approached the whole problem of youth unemployment in a complacent manner with a characteristic lack of foresight? Does he realise that we are deeply concerned—just as much as hon. Members opposite—and that we expect more action on youth employment to right the situation?

Mr. Booth: First, I welcome the degree to which the right hon. Gentleman has indicated the support of the Opposition for our measures. But I hardly think it fair at a time when we are announcing measures additional to a number of others already running and building up to a package larger than any others have been during a period of recession, for the Opposition to say that we lack concern or foresight. I accept that our measures are short term, but they are set in the context of longer-term measures that we have already announced. They include measures involving collective funding, transferable skills and vocational preparation, on which we are now working. I accept that the 30,000 places to be covered by the £10 a week six months' scheme will not all be additional to those covered by the existing scheme and that some will prove to be alternatives. But I would expect a substantial number to be a net increase in those helped to obtain jobs.
I hope that the House will welcome the fact that that part of the package will concentrate aid at a higher level than


previously on young people who particularly need it, because it will be given to provide jobs for young people with the greatest difficulty—those without qualifications on leaving school and those who have been without work for at least six months. It will operate over a wider age range than previously, and to that extent it has a particular contribution to make as well.

Mr. Cyril Smith: Is the Secretary of State aware that Liberal Members equally welcome any measures the Government have taken, including those announced this afternoon, to remove from young people the soul-destroying task of drawing the dole?
The right hon. Gentleman said that the TUC had approved this statement. Will he undertake to make sure that the regional organisers of the trade union movement are aware of the TUC's approval? Is he aware that, for example, one trade union in my constituency is preventing the creation of 30 jobs under the job creation scheme because of trade union objections? Will he undertake to make sure that trade union organisers understand the TUC's policy?

Mr. Booth: I am anxious to investigate any suggestion that there is not the maximum support of the trade union movement for projects designed to deal with youth unemployment, but all the indications I have from the TUC at national and regional levels is that it will support the work experience scheme that I have announced. There is a great deal of consultation to be carried out on the job swap scheme with both the TUC and the CBI. Not until that has been carried out shall I be able to say fully the nature of the support that will be forthcoming, but I considered it right to announce this proposal to the House before engaging in fuller consultation with the TUC or the CBI.

Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend's constructive proposals. Is he aware of the special problems of peripheral areas, such as the one I represent, where opportunities are scarce and unemployment is very high? Will he pay special attention to those areas, because our experience is that when the Government have made such proposals their benefits

have not extended to areas such as North Wales and West Wales? Will my right hon. Friend look at the matter again and consider, for example, the possibility of establishing a training centre or skill centre in the Gwynedd area, because the problems of unemployment are as serious there as they are anywhere else in the country?

Mr. Booth: I very much appreciate the problems to which my right hon. Friend refers. One of the great advantages of the work experience scheme is that it can be put into operation in every area and is not limited to areas in which there are Government training establishments. I shall follow up my right hon. Friend's points with the Training Services Agency, because I believe that there is a supplementary and complementary role in Government training establishments that would make them very valuable in the Anglesey area.

Mr. John Davies: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the distressing level of youth unemployment is not a phenomenon of Britain alone, but that throughout Europe the same terrible trouble is striking each country? Has he consulted his colleagues in Europe about the methods they are adopting to try to overcome the problem? In particular, in the light of all that he said on the subject of further training, has he considered the possibility of using this distressing experience to attain a better degree of language understanding than hitherto? There is a potential for considerable exchange of unemployed people at youth levels between countries to improve language understanding.

Mr. Booth: I have not considered that last proposition. I shall examine it. I have examined schemes running in a number of other European countries. I hope in the recess to examine certain counter-cyclical measures being deployed in Sweden. I have talked with the Belgian Minister of Labour about a scheme now being run in Belgium. We must be prepared to examine all possibilities. I agree that we can usefully exchange experience, particularly on youth employment measures.

Mr. Cryer: These measures are very welcome. Did my right hon. Friend say that the total number of jobs created


will be about 60,000? Does not that leave 140,000 school leavers unemployed, according to the July figures? Does he accept that, although the measures are welcome, they are purely cosmetic, and that the fact that 75 per cent. of unemployment is in the assisted areas shows that all the REPs and persuasion to capitalist enterprise to go there has failed? Fundamentally, what is needed is a different economic strategy, including the use of selective import controls, more investment through the NEB and the application of Clause 4 of the Labour Party constitution. Does my right hon. Friend agree that until we have a fundamentally Socialist approach we shall have this disease of capitalism, which seems to be spreading everywhere?

Mr. Booth: The 60,000 places to which I have referred are additional to those that will be provided by existing measures, with the exception of the £10 subsidy for the six months' unemployed young persons, which replaces the present recruitment subsidy for school leavers. I do not accept that the measures are purely cosmetic. They have a contribution to make to the job opportunities of young people who will be benefited by them during their later working life.
I would not claim—here I agree with my hon. Friend—that these measures alone can solve the fundamental unemployment problem. That depends very much upon economic and industrial policy in this country. What I am seeking to do by announcing these measures is not to solve that problem but to suggest certain additional measures that can be introduced at a time of extremely high unemployment to add to the support that one Department can give to unemployed young people.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope—[Interruption.] There is no need to cry out in anguish until hon. Members hear what I say. I hope to call a few more hon. Members to ask questions, but there is another major statement to come, and it will help the House considerably if hon. Members ask brief questions.

Mr. Welsh: The SNP welcomes any move to alleviate unemployment among young persons, but does the right hon.

Gentleman accept that student teachers are also young persons? Will he take urgent and specific action to help the young trained teachers now unemployed in Scotland?

Mr. Booth: We are particularly considering whether there is scope within existing schemes to help unemployed young teachers. I welcome the support the hon. Gentleman has just indicated for this project, and I undertake to examine the problem further.

Mr. John Mendelson: The additional measures that my right hon. Friend has announced will in part come to an end on 1st April 1977. That is the time when, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor announced on behalf of the Government yesterday, the impact of new unemployment created by the Government's deliberate policies will begin to take effect. With all the good will that we have for my right hon. Friend's own efforts, does he not accept that economic policy is bound to make nonsense of his other efforts? Does he agree that it is necessary to see that those skilled jobs that are needed are created by an overall policy that does not make it almost impossible for him to succeed because of what the Chancellor does on behalf of the Government as a whole?

Mr. Booth: The measures that I have announced today operate on different time scales. The work experience scheme will run through to September of next year, and others will operate over different periods. These are to be set against two considerations. One is that mentioned by my hon. Friend—the effect of the measures announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor. The other is the improved industrial situation that we hope to be then experiencing creating many more jobs in manufacturing industry.

Mr. Steen: Has the Minister any plans to help the other 300,000 young people under the age of 20 who will not be touched by this scheme?

Mr. Booth: The other young people under 20 who will not be touched by the scheme will in the main be aided by existing measures. The total schemes running as from the time of the introduction of these measures will cover most of the unemployed young people.

Mr. Michael McGuire: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the problem in certain areas of the regions? Will he bear in mind the special problems of Skelmersdale New Town, where male unemployment is at present over 20 per cent.? If these schemes touch only the fringes, will my right hon. Friend look seriously at how he can help especially towns such as Skelmersdale New Town?

Mr. Booth: Our intention is that the measures shall operate more flexibly. In examining the application of the work experience programme and the scope of the job swap scheme, one consideration we shall have in mind is the special problem of new towns. If I fail to consider Skelmersdale sufficiently, I am certain that that will be drawn to my attention by my hon. Friend.

Mr. Brittan: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that for the individual one of the disadvantages of the work experience scheme and job creation programme is that they last only for a short time at the end of which the individual has to seek a job? Will the Minister say for how long the work experience programme will last for an individual so that we may compare that programme with the other programmes he has announced?

Mr. Booth: The period of the work experience courses will vary. As the programme has to end in September next year, I hope that most of the courses will start soon enough to allow a period of six months. I am thinking in terms of a limited period of six months of work experience, and many of the courses which start earlier running longer. In determining this period in discussion with members of the Manpower Services Commission Council we were advised by employers that they would consider schemes operating on this basis because it would lead to better opportunities for the young people who took them to obtain employment and would be long enough to enable them to gain useful experience.

Mr. Park: Am I right in assuming that the schemes will not apply to the West Midlands? If so, there will be great disappointment in the West Midlands, which has an unemployment level as high as or higher than that of some assisted areas. That adds point to our

plea for a much more flexible regional policy.

Mr. Booth: The first three measures I announced will apply nationwide. I have also said that, in considering plans for a job swap scheme, the Government are in the first instance considering its application solely in assisted areas. To that extent it will not cover the area in which my hon. Friend is interested.

Mr. Wyn Roberts: Although youth unemployment is general, it is most acute in the assisted areas. Are the Government considering any further measures, in addition to those the right hon. Gentleman has announced, which would be confined to the assisted areas?

Mr. Booth: No. We are not considering any further measures confined to the assisted areas. In considering the job swap scheme in this context, we are conscious that we have to decide whether it shall be a scheme for directly swapping job with job, or a scheme to allow a person to be brought into a job made available on a normal promotional scheme and thus improve the chances of providing a job for a young person.

Mr. Heffer: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that it is an absolute absurdity that yesterday the Chancellor of the Exchequer came to the House to defend cuts in public expenditure that will put building workers and others out of work and today my right hon. Friend comes to the House and puts a patch on an open wound? Is it not time that the Government reconsidered their whole industrial and economic strategy and got back to a policy of full employment? Is it not clear that in the building industry—a labour-intensive industry—young people will get no chance of apprenticeships on the basis of the present policy and the growing unemployment in the industry?

Mr. Booth: The Government have a responsibility to consider the combined effect of a number of measures of economic strategy on total levels of employment. The package I announced today seeks to recognise that the recession affects young people more seriously than it affects others and that there is a special case for introducing measures to help young people at the beginning of what otherwise


would be their working life to face a period of unemployment.

Mr. Bulmer: What advice did the Department of Employment give to the Treasury on the effect on youth unemployment of raising the employers' national insurance contribution?

Mr. Booth: The advice that flows between the Department of Employment and the Treasury on employment measures is a matter of continual surveillance by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and myself. In looking at the measure to which the hon. Gentleman referred, as with many others, we have had to consider the effect not only on youth employment but on employment measures generally.

Mr. Craigen: What consultation was there with education authorities about my right hon. Friend's exhortation to young people to say longer at school? Moreover, what are the Government's longer-term plans to offset the job losses that are bound to arise with the continuing pressure on local and central Government authorities to reduce their staffs?

Mr. Booth: I have been in discussion with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science both about the effect of the work experience scheme and my "exhortation", as my hon. Friend calls it, to young people to remain at school if they have no job opportunity before them. In the course of working out the work experience schemes we shall be involved in discussions with local education authorities throughout the country to determine how far they contribute towards young people staying on at school and increasing access to day-release courses.

Mr. Blenkinsop: I welcome my right hon. Friend's announcement of improvements in training facilities. Will he take the lead in getting a definition of responsibility between the Departments involved, which include the Supplementary Benefits Commission on the one hand and the Departments of Health and Social Security, Employment, and Education and Science on the other? Is it not crazy that people should be able to draw unemployment benefit by sitting tight and doing nothing when those who take advantage of training schemes sometimes receive no allowances?

Mr. Booth: We are looking at the instances where allowances are not available for training schemes. In the overwhelming majority of training schemes administered by the Training Services Agency there is a tax-free training allowance. I readily recognise that there are still some outstanding cases where we could possibly induce more people to take up training, and those we are continuing to examine.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the main factor for young people is the acquisition of skill for themselves and the country? I support the measures the right hon. Gentleman announced, but even if young people have work experience for the next year or so, unemployment will still be high at the end of that time. How will the Minister ensure that these young people when they are older can get apprenticeships and secure a skill valuable to them and the country?

Mr. Booth: I agree that that is a very important question. We are considering it in connection with the work experience scheme, which I announced today, and in connection with the vocational preparation pilot schemes, which we are running on the collective funding of transferable skills. My own view as of now and subject to the outcome of these discussions is that there may well be a case for having greater flexibility of entry age for young people into training for skills.

Mr. Speaker: The Lord President—statement.

Mr. John Mendelson: On a point of order. Mr. Sneaker. In view of the importance of the subject and the many occasions on which hon. Members have been asking the Government and the Secretary of State for Employment when they will make the statement, and as we are about to rise for the recess and no hon. Member will have an opportunity to raise this matter, may I appeal to you to allow an deliberate extension in order that more questions may be put by hon. Members on this statement, which surpasses all others in importance?

Mr. Kinnock: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I realise that your judgment must apply on these things and that there is a further statement to come


and important business is to come afterwards. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone (Mr. Mendelson) says, we are about to go away until 11th October. There is a record level of youth unemployment. Four hon. Members opposite and nine Labour Members still wish to speak. This is a matter of immediate and serious anxiety that would justify our making an application under Standing Order No. 9. It is out of consideration for the House that I have not done so, but I would hope that you would make extra time available for hon. Members to ask further questions.

Mr. Kilroy-Silk: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I support what my hon. Friends have said. When we have such a high rate of unemployment on Merseyside and when there are so many young people there who have had a very bleak past and who face a very depressing future because they live in an area with the highest rate of unemployment in the country, it is important that we have an opportunity to debate this matter before the recess.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman summed the matter up in his last few words. Providing an opportunity for debate is not for me. This is the time for making statements. I would ask hon. Gentleman to realise that there will be some hon. Members here at 4 o'clock in the morning and that other business has to go on. I have allowed 25 minutes for questions on this statement and I have no doubt that the House will require a similar period for the next statement. I gather from his indication that the Lord President thinks not. Maybe not. I understand the deep feelings of hon. Gentlemen who want questions to continue, but my own judgment is that we must now move on.

Mr. Loyden: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will be aware that the document that the Secretary of State has read to us has not been available to hon. Members and there are several aspects of it that have not been dealt with. Many of them are very important, particularly that of early retirement and its consequences, but no questions have been asked about that. I appeal to you to allow more time for these questions.

Mr. Speaker: That is a question for debate and not for question and answer. I am in the difficulty that if I decide to allow one question, every hon. Member feels that his should be the one. I am afraid that hon. Gentlemen must pursue their questions through other means.

Mr. John Mendelson: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman that he has submitted a point of view to which I listened with great respect, and also to his colleagues. I hope, therefore, that he will accept the reply that I have now given.

Mr. John Mendelson: May I point out, Mr. Speaker, that on previous occasions before the war, when we had high levels of unemployment—which, fortunately, we are not yet approaching, although it is the highest level since the war—the House sometimes refused to deal with any other questions at Question Time and the Chair allowed the House, with a full sense of responsibility, to stay on the subject of unemployment, as some hon. and right hon. Members know because they were here at the time. I am appealing to you, Mr. Speaker, to follow that precedent and to allow other hon. and right hon. Members still rising to their feet to ask questions about unemployment.

Mr. Speaker: I have given the House my decision and I am afraid that it must stand. I am not going to take points of order in respect of my own ruling.

Mr. Kinnock: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am ruling that there is no point of order at the moment.

Mr. Kinnock: On a different point of order, Mr. Speaker. In the course of what you said, you indicated that there were opportunities open to hon. Gentlemen to take up the matter in a different form. The one that offers itself most easily and conveniently is an application under Standing Order No. 9—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is raising this matter in respect of what I have already said. I will not allow any argument in respect of the decision that I have already taken.

Mr. Kinnock: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I must ask the hon. Gentleman to resume his seat.

Mr. Kinnock: On another point of order, Mr. Speaker—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have been very patient. Let me say to the hon. Gentleman that I cannot take further points of order on what I have said, and I want the hon. Gentleman to understand that.

Mr. Kinnock: I understand your great difficulty, Mr. Speaker. I would be the last person to cause you embarrassment or to hold up the House on this matter. But in view of the situation and in view of what you have been obliged to say—and I entirely accept it—I feel I must apply for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 on a matter which is urgent, important and specific.

Mr. Speaker: Later.

DEVOLUTION (SCOTLAND AND WALES)

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Michael Foot): On 25th May I made a statement on how we proposed to carry forward the Government's plans for devolution to Scotland and Wales. This included various changes in the substance of the schemes, for example, on the Development Agencies, the rôle of the Secretary of State, and general United Kingdom reserve powers. I promised a further statement on outstanding issues before the Summer Recess.
The ground to be covered is too varied and detailed for me to deal with it fully in an oral statement of a length that would be tolerable to the House. The Government are therefore publishing a statement, available now in the Vote Office, bringing together all the changes and additions as compared with the November White Paper—that is, both those announced on 25th May and the new decisions we have taken since then.
It may be convenient if I mention briefly now the main points of the new decisions.
First, we have confirmed that if there is doubt about whether a Bill of the Scottish Assembly goes beyond the Assembly's legislative competence—that

is, its vires—the final decision will lie with the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. In addition, we have decided that after Assembly measures have passed into law the courts should still be free to consider questions about their vires. This was an issue left open in the White Paper.
We received much criticism of the proposal that parliamentary constituencies with very small electorates—that is, mainly rural and island ones—should have only one Assembly seat. We have now decided that all parliamentary constituencies should have at least two. Those with very large electorates will still get three. We have also decided to apply these arrangements from the very first election, though it will still not be possible to divide up the parliamentary constituencies by then into single-Member Assembly seats.
We have decided to drop the proposal that the devolved administrations should have a power to make a surcharge on the rates. We have not identified any satisfactory alternative revenue-raising powers, but we should be prepared to look at the matter again in future if changes in the taxation system were to throw up acceptable new possibilities. We have confirmed that the universities in Scotland and Wales should remain part of the co-ordinated British system and not be devolved, but new arrangements will be made to reflect the interests of the devolved administrations in relation to them.
We have decided to devolve important responsibilities for the Scottish courts system. The appointment of Supreme Court judges and sheriffs and the basic structure of the Supreme and Sheriff courts must remain a United Kingdom responsibility, but a wide range of subjects will be devolved, including, for example, the administration of the whole system; related law on matters like evidence; and virtually all aspects of the district courts.
We have decided that the Scottish Assembly should be able to legislate throughout the field of Scotland's distinctive private law. It remains, of course, essential that these powers should not damage United Kingdom unity in matters like trade, consumer protection and industrial relations. United Kingdom general reserve powers will be available if necessary to ensure this, but the


Government wish in practice to rely essentially on close and systematic two-way consultation and co-operation.
For Wales, we recognise that the advent of the Assembly will produce a new situation in relation to other levels of government. We shall therefore ask the Assembly, when it is in being, to report specially on the structure of local government in Wales. Any legislation on this would remain a matter for Parliament. We have decided also to strengthen the powers of the Welsh Assembly over non-elected public bodies operating in devolved matters. These further improvements in our plans, which are set out more exactly in the full statement, will be reflected in the Bill to be introduced at the beginning of next Session.

Mr. Whitelaw: Will the Lord President take it that his limited statement is helpful at least in that it shows to the House many of the grave difficulties which the Government face in preparing their devolution Bill? Does he realise also that the opportunity for conflict and the inevitable increase in bureaucracy entailed in the Government's original proposals remain and are still as objectionable as ever? As regards the individual decisions, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that some are welcome in themselves, but they are frequently so qualified—presumably to meet conflicting views within the Government—that they are in many cases of very limited value?
Finally, will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the very brief reference in the original statement to devolution to the English regions and its complete omission from what he has had to say today means that that insane proposal is now being decently buried? If that is so, will he take it that many people fed up with increasing bureaucracy will at least be thankful for small mercies?

Mr. Foot: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman's comments on what we are proposing will be more valuable when he has had a chance to study in detail what we suggest. I must tell him that, far from proposing an increase in bureaucracy, what we are proposing is an increase in democracy, and that is one of the main reasons for the whole programme of devolution, which has been strongly supported

in Scotland and in Wales. It is to make the whole system of government in those countries more democratic that we are putting these proposals forward. As for the proposals regarding England, as I mentioned before, we suggest that the best way to proceed will be to publish a document on that subject roughly at the same time as we introduce the Bill.

Mr. David Steel: I welcome the improvements which the Government have made in their devolution proposals as outlined in the right hon. Gentleman's statement, especially those for which we asked, that is, for removing what we called the "governor-general" powers of the Secretary of State for Scotland. But does the Lord President recognise that the psychology of the Government's approach is still wrong when they use titles such as "Chief Executive" and "Assistant" for what ought to be Scotland's team of Ministers?
Since the Lord President proposes to transfer responsibility for financing the Scottish Development Agency from the Exchequer here to the Scottish Assembly, yet without giving the Assembly any taxation powers, has he studied the divisions of oil revenue taxation as between the Federal States and the Central Exchequer in both America and Canada? Surely, there is potential there. Further, will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that the plan for three Members for certain constituencies in Scotland has nothing to do with the coincidence that most of those constituencies happen to be held by the Labour Party? Finally, what has happened to the previous Prime Minister's commitment that the consultation document on England would be published last February?

Mr. Foot: I have already referred to the document on England in reply to the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Whitelaw). Perhaps I may take the hon. Gentleman's other questions roughly in reverse order. I think that he has got the position the wrong way round regarding representation from the various areas in Scotland. Certainly no consideration such as he suggested entered our thoughts or even crossed our minds in dealing with these matters. As I have already said, many of the most outlying areas are those which would have advantage from what we suggest,


and I hope that that will be properly appreciated in Shetland and the Orkneys and further to the West. I hope, therefore, that that proposal also will be welcomed.
As for the nomenclature of the various persons or bodies which are to operate, obviously these are matters which can be dealt with as the Bill passes through the House. If there are better suggestions and improvements in this respect, we shall listen to them as carefully as we have listened to the many other suggestions which have come, some from the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends and some from others. That was the whole purpose of the general consultations which we have had, and I believe that, when the House has had the chance to study in detail how we have improved upon our original proposals, right hon. and hon. Members will recognise that we have made a serious effort to take into account the representations which have come from many quarters, and they will recognise also how determined we are to carry this project through to success in the interests of the whole United Kingdom.

Mr. Gourlay: Will my right hon. Friend take it that the Government's proposals will be generally welcomed in Scotland, and will he confirm that devolution to the Scottish Assembly will not be subject to the veto in areas of its powers which are devolved? Further, will my right hon. Friend accept that the future unity of the United Kingdom is entirely based on the successful passing of the Bill through the House in the next Session of Parliament?

Mr. Foot: As was indicated by the Leader of the Liberal Party, we have altered the alleged veto powers which existed, or were supposed to exist, in the previous proposition. Perhaps I could take this opportunity to deal with one of the other questions which the hon. Gentleman raised but with which I did not deal in my previous reply to him—that is, the question of oil revenues. We certainly do not think that it would be a sensible arrangement to do what he suggested regarding oil revenues. We believe that the oil belongs to the whole United Kingdom and has to be dealt with on that basis.
I fully agree with what my hon. Friend said in his closing remarks. Successful democratic government in Scotland and in Wales and the maintenance of the unity of the United Kingdom depend, in our view, on the successful carrying through of our legislation, and that is why we are determined to do it.

Mr. Powell: Have the Government given further thought to the problem of the high level of representation of Scotland in this House, bearing in mind that many matters which at present are debated and decided in this House would be transferred elsewhere under the Government's proposals?

Mr. Foot: I fully recognise the importance of the subject which the right hon. Gentleman raises, although it is in no sense dealt with in the supplementary White Paper in the Vote Office. It is a matter which will have to be debated when the whole Bill comes before the House.

Mr. Dalyell: Is it not a basic truth that any Assembly which is not responsible for raising its own money is fiscally irresponsible and a focus of discontent? Is it not true also that every grievance, real or imagined—every hospital which is not modernised, every school which is not built, every road which is not repaired—will be ascribed to the insufficient size of the block grant and the parsimony of the English Treasury, and is this not a recipe for break-up?

Mr. Foot: That is not a basic truth at all. It is the basic prejudice of my hon. Friend, and that is the reason why his opinion is so little shared, for example, among trade unionists in Scotland, who have approved in almost every particular the kind of proposals which we are putting forward. I therefore repudiate entirely what my hon. Friend says in that respect. Moreover, far from believing that when these Assemblies are established in Scotland and in Wales—[HON. MEMBERS: "If."] Far from thinking that, when they are established in Scotland and in Wales, they will lead to the kind of conflicts which my hon. Friend envisages, I am confident that when those Assemblies see the real powers which they will have to exercise in the interests of the people of Scotland and Wales, they will wish to use


them to the full in the interests of their people, and I believe that a quite different prospect can open before us. Moreover, I believe that, if we were to follow my hon. Friend's advice, the wrecking of the United Kingdom would then be a certainty.

Mr. Reid: The last two questions from the Government side indicate the hopeless Catch 22 situation of the Minister. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that half of both the Unionist parties are crying "Forward, forward" for otherwise will mean independence for Scotland, and the other half are crying "Back, back" for otherwise there will be independence for Scotland? The reality is that where the process stops will be decided not by this House but by the people of Scotland.

Mr. Speaker: Order. This is not the time for debating the issue. Would the hon. Gentleman ask his question?

Mr. Reid: What is required in Scotland is access to its own natural resources so that in Scotland we can follow policies dovetailed to the needs of the people in fiscal areas in trade and in industry.

Mr. Foot: I understand why the hon. Gentleman does not like our proposals. What he wants is separatism, and there is no element of separatism in our proposals. What the hon. Gentleman wants is something quite different from what we are aiming at, from what we promised at the last two elections, and from what we are going to carry into operation.

Mr. Moonman: Does my right hon. Friend accept that one would have to be a supreme optimist to welcome this statement because of the enormous gaps that still exist in basic information? Will my right hon. Friend indicate at what point we are likely to get the figures and the cost of the Assembly which are not in this statement? Does my right hon. Friend feel that he has a responsibility to make information available so that the public have a better understanding of the statement's implications?

Mr. Foot: There is no variation from the cost of the proposals made in the original White Paper. My hon. Friend said that we had failed to provide information and the proper means of discussion. He cannot have been taking the

trouble to follow what happened following the publication of our White Paper. There has been extensive discussion, not only in Scotland and Wales—naturally they are the places principally interested—but throughout this country. A statement has been issued, for example, by the General Council of the TUC fully welcoming our proposals, and those views were reached after considerable discussion.
I quite agree that there should be further discussions and there will be the opportunity for them. However, I hope that my hon. Friend will understand that the Government have made up their minds about the issue and are determined to present this legislation to the House as we have promised.

Mr. D. E. Thomas: Does the Lord President agree that the absence from the Treasury Bench today of many of his hon. Friends from the Welsh Office indicates that there is nothing of substantial development in this statement as far as Wales is concerned? For example, does he agree that the subject of local authorities is an issue that the Assembly will debate anyway? There is no provision for clear financial powers for the Assembly, for economic planning powers, or for powers of legislation defining the thorny area of secondary versus primary education, an area which the Government are avoiding.

Mr. Foot: The reason for the absence of some of my hon. Friends is well known. They are performing their Welsh duty and pleasure at the Eisteddfod. I am sure that even the hon. Gentleman would be prepared to excuse them on those grounds.
I do not accept that the powers of the Welsh Assembly are as restricted as the hon. Gentleman has said. They are different from those proposed for the Scottish Assembly for reasons which we have discussed and shall no doubt discuss again. However, they are extremely extensive powers. As I indicated in my statement—I think this will be greatly welcomed in Wales—there is an extension of what we are proposing for control over nominated bodies and what should happen to local government. One of the many reasons why the proposal for a Welsh Assembly will be welcomed in Wales is precisely that it will provide the opportunity for making proposals for the


drastic changes in local authorities which since the last changes have become so necessary in Wales.

Mr. Anderson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his statement will be seen as a clarifying and tidying operation? However, it is still academic in the worst sense since he is building constitutional castles in the air, because there is no support in the House for his measures unless and until the people of Wales and Scotland are given a chance to express their views by a referendum.

Mr. Foot: All my hon. Friends who were elected to this House—I know this does not apply to my hon. Friend who came a little later—in the General Election of 1974 fought in Wales on a manifesto in which it was made quite clear that we were going to carry through our proposals on devolution. The people of Wales had every opportunity to consider the matter then and have had frequent opportunities of considering it since. There was a recent Labour Party conference in Wales. I am not sure whether my hon. Friend was present, but he will know how overwhelming the vote was in support of our proposals. He will also know how strong has been the support for these proposals from the Welsh TUC.
It is very misleading for those who have a minority view, which they are entitled to express, to say that we are not providing the opportunity for discussion. We are carrying through what we said at both elections. I believe that our policy will command the support of the people in Wales in future just as it did on the last two occasions when it was put to them.

Mr. Maurice Macmillan: As I understand it, the right hon. Gentleman said that the powers of the Scottish Assembly compared with those of Parliament were justiciable, as is any conflict in the exercise of those powers. Does the right hon. Gentleman seriously think that the arrangement will work without any formal Bill of Rights? Does he not think that a formal Bill of Rights is necessary to protect the people of England, quite apart from the rest of the United Kingdom?
Has the right hon. Gentleman any ideas on how he can prevent secession,

which some hon. Gentlemen clearly want, being effected under a Scottish Assembly unless a provision is included in a Bill of Rights to protect the rights of the people in Wales, Northern Ireland and England?

Mr. Foot: Issues that will be justiciable will be defined in the Bill and eventually the Act of Parliament when that goes through this House. We do not think that it is right to proceed on the basis of a Bill of Rights, partly because that is not the right way to proceed for the country as a whole. However, there must be some way of deciding whether an Act has been properly carried into effect. The House would be well advised to examine carefully, as we have, the best way of achieving this result. Far from thinking that in the years when the Asemblies are established there will be great conflicts between them and Parliament, we believe that, so long as the Act is sensible, as we are proposing, the powers could well be seen by those who exercise them to offer great democratic opportunities in their countries, and I believe that they will be used in that way.

Mr. English: Is my right hon. Friend aware that some Members support devolution? Is he also aware that amongst English Members he is steadily losing support, because he has constantly postponed his proposals for devolution in England? For example, some English Members think that many things could be run better from Nottingham than from Whitehall, just as from Edinburgh or Cardiff.

Mr. Foot: As I said before, I believe that the most appropriate time for publishing a statement on that subject will be when the Bill is introduced. English Members should have no fears about what we are proposing. We are not proposing to discriminate in economic affairs in favour of either Scotland or Wales. In the establishment and accountability of the Welsh Development Agency and the Scottish Development Agency we made provision to ensure that the proper interests of all parts of the United Kingdom were protected. I believe that the more hon. Members look at these proposals, the more we shall dispel their prejudices, because they will see that we have tried energetically and diligently to


reach a proper and fair solution of the problem.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: In the event of the Government failing to get a Second Reading for the devolution Bill, will the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues consider the use of a referendum as many people in Scotland consider that there is no other way of effectively determining the extent of the desire for both devolution within the framework of the United Kingdom and, indeed, independence?

Mr. Foot: That is not the right way to proceed, for the reasons that we have often given. Moreover, if we were to introduce a referendum Bill now to deal with these proposals, we would have as extensive discussions about that as about the measures themselves. Therefore, that is not the right way to proceed. We have already made that plain to the House.
As for not getting the Bill through, I was told only a few weeks ago about other Bills that we would not get through the House, but we are getting them through all right.

Mr. Robin F. Cook: Is the Leader of the House aware that many of us differ from my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) and believe that the creation of a Scottish Assembly is essential for the unity of Britain? Nevertheless, we share my hon. Friend's disappointment that my right hon. Friend has been unable to propose tax-raising powers. Does he believe that it is wise to set up an elected body that will have the right to spend public money but will not have the discipline or responsibility for raising even part of that expenditure?

Mr. Foot: I appreciate what my hon. Friend said in the first part of his question regarding how we should proceed, but when he sees our statement he will see that we are proposing to drop the rate surcharge that had been the previous proposal. The more we considered it and listened to representations about it, the more we recognised that was not a sensible way to proceed. We have not excluded other ways of dealing with this matter. When my hon. Friend looks at the statement, he will appreciate that. Obviously, we shall have to discuss it.

I admit that we have not discovered a satisfactory way of solving the problem, but we have not slammed the door on it.

Mr. Sproat: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Bill is a dead duck even before it starts? Is he further aware that the continuing process of appeasement to which we have listened this afternoon lends even greater strength to the argument of Members on both sides of the House and people in Scotland and the United Kingdom as a whole who believe that the whole concept of a separate Scottish Parliament is just the start down the slippery slope to separatism?

Mr. Foot: There are some Members in the House who, like the hon. Gentleman, are opposed to any form of devolution, but those who listened to the previous debates when we discussed the White Paper and those who have listened to the debates throughout the country during the intervening months will recognise that what we are proposing, far from being injurious to the United Kingdom, is the only way in which the United Kingdom can effectively be kept together. I thought at one time that other parties were in favour of that approach. I understand that the Liberal Party is still in favour of seeking to protect the United Kingdom in this way. However, the Conservative Party has no policy on this subject. At any rate, it has not declared any policy in public. We declared our policy at both elections and in this House. We shall present the Bill to this House and the other place and carry it through.

Mr. Sillars: Does the absence of any reference in the statement to trade, industry and employment mean that the Government have finally closed their mind to any further progress on those matters? As for the passage of the Bill, is it not abundantly clear from all that has gone before in debates, and particularly from what has happened this afternoon, that the Government will need a guillotine to get the Bill through? Would it not be better for my right hon. Friend to say that now and to start discussing with other opinions in the House a reasonable timetable motion, which will guarantee the passage of the Bill? Will my right hon. Friend also remind Labour Members that no guillotine means no Bill, and that no Bill means no Labour Government?

Mr. Foot: It is not true that my statement made no reference to economic affairs. It referred again to the important question of the accountability of the Scottish Development Agency. My hon. Friend will see that referred to in the White Paper. That was the principal economic question that was raised in many of our discussions, particularly with trade unionists in Scotland, when we were debating the matter.
It is premature to discuss a guillotine. The House knows how reluctant I am to introduce guillotines.

Mr. Amery: As we shall have no opportunity to debate this important statement and the White Paper before the House rises for the Summer Recess, will the right hon. Gentleman pay special heed to the warm response, from both sides of the House, to the intervention of his hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell)? Does he recognise that there is no conceivable majority for legislation on the basis that he has put forward, or anything remotely similar? Will he take the opportunity of the Summer Recess to change his mind and not waste the time of parliamentary draftsmen during the recess or of this House when we come back?

Mr. Foot: I recommend anyone who accepts the view of the right hon. Gentleman on these matters to read the speech that was delivered from below the Gangway by the right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath). No one reading that speech could believe that there is no support by the Opposition for devolution proposals. What the right hon. Member for Sidcup said on that occasion could be fruitfully studied by many of his right hon. and hon. Friends. Certainly there is to be no abandonment by the Government of this proposal. It was a major proposal in our election manifestos. We are proposing to carry out what we set out in our manifestos. It would be a gross breach of faith if we were to go back on it. We have no intention whatsoever of doing so.

Mr. Tom Ellis: As the proposed Welsh Assembly is to be asked to report on the structure of local government in Wales, and in view of the stark alternatives facing local government in Wales and England, as spelt out in the Layfield Report, will my right hon. Friend tell us what weight the Government will attach

to the report when it appears and, in particular, whether they are prepared to act on any recommendations that it contains?

Mr. Foot: We shall pay the closest attention to what is recommended on that subject. I should like to give an illustration of how I believe the establishment of a Welsh Assembly could have been of great assistance to Wales. If there had been a Welsh Assembly in existence a few years ago, the hopeless, rigid, so-called reform of local government that was forced upon us by the then Conservative Government would never have got through. No Welsh Assembly would have allowed such a proposition to go through. Its voice would have been raised so strongly that it would have prevented the whole of the expense and disorganisation that was caused by that measure. That is an illustration of how, if we can invoke democracy in Wales and Scotland more effectively, we can contribute to the effective government of the whole country.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: I shall call two more Members to ask questions. Mr. David Crouch.

Mr. Crouch: I, for one, am certainly not against devolution. I welcome the phrase in the White Paper about modernising and strengthening the United Kingdom. However, it is not good enough for the White Paper, in a throw-away line, to refer to what might happen in England. I think that as we go into the holiday it would have been better had the Government given us a better idea of what is intended for England. Are the Government moving in the direction of a federal system?

Mr. Foot: On all occasions in previous statements we have proposed a consultative document to deal with what will be proposed for England. We suggest that the most appropriate time for it to be published is when the Bill is brought forward. I think that that is the best way in which to proceed. I hope that all hon. Members and the country will examine in detail the proposals that we have made and compare them with the original White Paper. If the two documents are taken together, I believe that they propose a a feasible plan of devolution which takes


account of all the representations that have been made throughout the country.

Mr. William Hamilton: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the more powers that are given to the Assembly, the less defensible it becomes to have 71 Scottish Members in this House? Secondly, as the legislation is likely to be highly controversial, will he give a categorical assurance now that as he has a general distaste for guillotines he will in no circumstances introduce a guillotine on this Bill?

Mr. Foot: As I said in response to the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) at the beginning of these questions, the whole issue of representation from Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and England is an important matter that must be discussed when the Bill is going through. Certainly it is our intention that representation in this House from Wales and Scotland should be sustained on the present basis. As for my hon. Friend's second question, I have said that it is premature for me to say anything about a guillotine. It would be absurd for anyone who was Leader of the House, many months before a Bill has been introduced and many months before the House has even had an opportunity to see what is in the Bill, to make a statement about guillotines. Therefore, I shall not answer that part of my hon. Friend's question any more than I answered my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Sillars), who put the question from a different point of view.
I do not want there to be any misunderstanding. The Government are pledged to introduce this measure and we are determined to carry it through because we believe it is essential to do so in the interests of the United Kingdom itself.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: I call for the hon. Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock) to make his application under Standing Order No. 9.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Surely those who represent English constituencies should not be excluded from questions on devolution, especially those of us whose interventions in the House are now comparatively rare.

Mr. Ogden: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. In case some hon. Members were under the impression that some are more equal than others, or that you might require another pair of spectacles—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman will withdraw any implication that I am unfair, and he will do it at once.

Mr. Ogden: Under your instructions, Mr. Speaker, I withdraw any implication that you are unfair. I repeat that it would be unfortunate if hon. Members were left under any misapprehension about the rules under which you call Members. If you could give some guidance to them now or at some time before the next Session, we might feel a little easier on this matter, which is of concern to so many of us.

Mr. MacFarquhar: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. As the devolution measure will depend for its passage on a majority of English Members, whether Government or Opposition Members, surely English Members should be called on devolution questions.

Mr. McNamara: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I draw your attention to attitudes that have been expressed by those who were fortunate enough to catch your eye from the Government Benches, and the attitude they took to the Government's proposals. I must point out that there are some Labour Members who on occasions support Government policy.

Mr. Alexander Wilson: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Before you give a ruling on these points of order, I must point out sincerely that every hon. Member sitting on the Government Benches and the Opposition Benches is a British Member of Parliament. I take exception to those who describe themselves as English, Welsh, Scottish, or Irish Members of Parliament. I suggest that when you give your ruling, Mr. Speaker, you point out that it will be the British Government and British Members of Parliament who will make the decisions on devolution.

Mr. Skinner: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will recall that about half an hour ago you were telling the House how important it was to get on


to other business. Despite the fact that there were 13 of my hon. Friends standing, as well as four Opposition Members, who wanted to deal with matters concerned with youth unemployment, you felt it necessary to move on. It now appears that you have allowed more time—

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Skinner: —on devolution questions—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have told the hon. Gentleman before that he must resume his seat when I stand.

Mr. Skinner: It would help if you told everybody that.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The House is aware that I have been very patient with the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner). I tell him that if he does that once again I shall ask him to leave the precincts of the House for the rest of this day's sitting. The hon. Gentleman must learn to address the Chair properly.
I answer the points of order by telling the House that if anyone else were in my place he would not find it easy. The House will understand that whoever is in the Chair wishes above all to be fair to every point of view within the House in trying to make a fair selection. I endeavoured this afternoon—I am seeking not to excuse myself but to explain—to ensure that both sides of the argument were able to be pressed, regardless of geographical boundaries, and that was done. It so happens that in the balance we had English Members, Scots Members, Welsh Members, and Ulster Members.

Mr. Alexander Wilson: British Members.

Mr. Speaker: That is right. We had Members from the United Kingdom as a whole.
I call Mr. Kinnock to make his application under Standing Order No. 9.

YOUTH EMPLOYMENT

Mr. Kinnock: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important

matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
The statement of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment on measures to combat youth unemployment, particularly the novel proposal for encouraging early retirement among older workers.
I apologise for the fact that due to circumstances which we both understand, Mr. Speaker, I was not able to give the customary early notice of my intention to move the Adjournment of the House. That is because of the sheer novelty of the proposal made by my right hon. Friend during his statement.
The matter is urgent, because this is effectively the last week in which we can discuss these problems. It is important, because of the enormous and record size of the problem, which my right hon. Friend concedes very readily, to which he is trying to make a constructive response. It is specific, because it is an absolutely novel proposal for introducing encouragement, which I would support, for older workers over 55 years to create further opportunities for young people as long as they get £60 a week. It is a proposal that we introduce, or consider introducing, as a structural answer to an immense and chronic structural problem, and as such it deserves something more than the statement that my right hon. Friend has been able to make.
The questions which you, in your wisdom, Mr. Speaker, decided to allow on my right hon. Friend's statement were many and varied. I therefore apply for the Adjournment of the House on a matter of urgent, important and specific concern.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he thinks should have urgent consideration, namely,
The statement of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Employment on measures to combat youth unemployment, particularly the novel proposal for encouraging early retirement among older workers.
As the House knows, under Standing Order No. 9 I am directed to take into account the several factors set out in the Standing Order, but to give no reasons for my decision.
I have given careful consideration to the representations made by the hon.


Gentleman, but I have to rule that his submission does not fall within the provisions of the Standing Order and, therefore, I cannot submit his application to the House.

ADJOURNMENT (SUMMER)

Mr. Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As you will appreciate, the House rises in three days, and I wonder whether you have it within your power to outline here and now the provisions necessary for the recall of Parliament to discuss the level of unemployment and the continuing crisis of capitalism faced by this country. If not, I wonder whether, since my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House is now present, you could ask him to outline the Government arrangements for a recall of Parliament, because the provision of employment for all our people is an overriding economic question. I should have thought that within the next two months the crisis will deepen rather than lessen, and that on that basis provision should be made for the recall of Parliament to discuss the matter.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman will know that later in the week the House will discuss, on the motion for the Adjournment, the dates of the recess. If the hon. Gentleman is fortunate, he will then have an opportunity to raise this matter in the debate. I understand that that occasion will arise on Thursday.

Mr. Cryer: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. One is fully aware of

the somewhat superficial arrangements to enable Members of Parliament to debate wide-ranging topics that are mostly close to their constituencies. I am asking for a serious announcement to be made giving an outline as to the way in which Parliament can be recalled to discuss the subject of unemployment.

Mr. Speaker: Whether the House is recalled is not a matter for me; I am merely the machinery that is used. It is a matter for the Government, if they so wish, to recall the House during a recess. I hope that we can leave the matter there.

Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Will it be in order for hon. Members to discuss such subjects on the Consolidated Fund Bill debate tomorrow, to which considered answers will be given by Ministers?

Mr. Speaker: I understand that a list has already been posted showing those hon. Members who have been fortunate in the Ballot for that debate. I also gather that a list has been drawn up for the debate on the motion for the Adjournment on the last day.

BILL PRESENTED

EDUCATION (No. 2)

Mr. Christopher Price, supported by Mr. Martin Flannery and Mr. Michael Noble, presented a Bill to amend section 68 of the Education Act 1944: and the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed [Bill 222].

NATIONAL BUS COMPANY (DENATIONALISATION)

5.15 p.m.

Mr. Ian Gow: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to restore the National Bus Company and its subsidiaries to private ownership.
The National Bus Company was formed on 28th November 1968, under the provisions of the Transport Act of that year, which was introduced by the then Labour Government. On 1st January 1969 the NBC took over the assets and shareholdings in England and Wales held previously by the Transport Holding Company. All the shares in NBC are owned by the Government, but the Minister appoints the directors.
Section 41(2) of the Transport Act 1968 places a duty on the company to break even financially, taking one year with another, after account is taken of local authority revenue support contributions, yet last year—the year ending 31st December 1975—the company made a record loss of £19 million, while its debt increased by £22 million, from £99·6 million to £121·6 million. During the same year the number of passenger journeys fell by 137 million and the number of bus miles operated fell by 2 million, yet the number of staff employed by the company increased by 887—from 69,574 to 70,461.
Since the company was formed it has made a profit in only three out of seven years. In each of the other four years there has been a loss. Over the past seven years total losses have exceeded profits by £31·4 million—and this despite fuel duty rebates, revenue support and other central and local government grants amounting to £122·1 million over the seven-year period.
At the time when the Transport Act 1968 was going through the House my Conservative colleagues predicted that the target of being able to break even financially would not be met. The Government, and notably the Minister—and we are delighted to see the Minister for Transport present—seem to believe that they can suspend economic laws and that by virtue of an Act of Parliament or ministerial edict, a system that is inherently unsound and unprofitable—

namely, nationalisation—can be made to work.
In the House on 3rd December last, in answering a Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson), the Minister said
…I think that the National Bus Company does an admirable job in extremely difficult circumstances."—[Official Report, 3rd December 1975; Vol. 901, c. 1668.]
That was a ludicrous comment to make, just four weeks before the end of the worst-ever financial year for the company.
The Minister's admiration for the company is not reciprocated. In the annual report submitted to the Secretary of State on 7th June, the chairman wrote:
There is also great uncertainty about transport policy, which the publication of the Government's Consultation Document has naturally not resolved.
I wish to draw the Minister's attention to the use of the word "naturally". Earlier in that report there appeared the following apologia:
As the company is State-owned, the question of loans from and interest due to the Treasury is merely a matter of public funds being passed from one pocket to another. Nevertheless, this apparently purposeless loading of overhead charges on to an already finely balanced operating economy, must have a depressing effect on morale of the management when they are striving desperately to fulfil their financial duty of breaking even.
It would be wrong to blame the 70,000 employees of the compny for the fact that there is growing public dissatisfaction with the spiralling costs, the diminishing quality and the growing debt burden, which are the three basic ingredients of public ownerships. Those employees—all 70,000 of them—are the helpless victims of a system for which they themselves have increasing contempt.
The company is wholly unresponsive to the rapidly changing transport needs of the public. Overmanning, waste and the corroding influence of a virtual monopoly in the provision of bus services have provided the public and the taxpayer with the inevitble twin evils of nationalisation—an inadequte service and a growing financial burden. Only free enterprise responsive to the needs of the customer and determined to operate at a profit, can provide the necessary innovation and financial disciplines which are a precondition for success.
Would it be possible, at this stage, to find purchasers for the NBC, for its 95 subsidiaries, for the 20,000 buses and the premises throughout the country, owned at present by the State? It would, but we need to act quickly.
In a Written Answer on 20th July 1976, the Minister confirmed that at 31st December 1975 the net assets of the NBC and its subsidiaries exceeded liabilities by £25 million, but another 18 months of losses on last year's scale would wipe out that surplus.
This radical reform of the structure of bus services needs to be accompanied by an equally radical change in the present licensing system, so that in future licences to operate bus services will be granted to all, provided only that the crucial safety provisions are complied with.
There is a further reason why this measure is important and urgent. We are told that the Secretary of State for Energy wants additional powers—this will endear him to the Labour Benches below the Gangway—in order to direct the managements of those industries for which he has responsibility—coal, gas, oil and electricity—to do what he says.
The nationalised industries suffer already not from too little political direction but from too much. The prospect of having still further ministerial intervention in running industries that should be run on commercial lines is another reason for introducing the Bill today.
In a Written Answer on 24th May 1976, the Financial Secretary to the Treasury stated that over the 10 years 1966–76 the private sector had paid £17,090 million in corporation tax and advance corporation tax. In the same answer the Minister disclosed that over the same period the amount of corporation tax paid by nationalised industry had been negligible. It is time the Labour Party understood that it is only out of the profitable sectors of industry that money can be made available to finance the social services. A denationalised profit-making bus industry would not only remove the need for the taxpayer to subsidise that industry, but would mean that the profit-making companies would contribute additional revenue to the national Exchequer.
The Transport Act 1968 not only set up the National Bus Company; it set

up the National Freight Corporation, which last year made a record loss of £31 million. That, too, is an ideal candidate for denationalisation, and I shall be seeking leave to introduce a Bill for that purpose on 26th October. But today is not "National Freight Corporation Day". It is "National Bus Company Day". The House has the opportunity to release the National Bus Company from the paralysing control of the Minister and of the bureaucracy, to liberate the taxpayer from further subsidies and losses, and to give to the public that quality and choice of service which only free enterprise and the market economy can provide.

5.23 p.m.

Mr. Kevin McNamara: It may be helpful if I first declare my interest. I am the parliamentary secretary of the Transport and General Workers' Union group in the House, many of whose members are employed in the National Bus Company, where, I believe, we have over 75 per cent. of the membership, both of the platform staff and inside.
I listened with interest to the speech of the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow). He said nothing about bus users. He said nothing whatsoever about the changes that have taken place in our society over the past 10 years. He said nothing about the need to subsidise areas in our community that would be completely without any form of local transport service if we did not have the National Bus Company.
We heard from the hon. Gentleman a completely heartless speech, which showed no realisation of the problems of many people in constituencies that his hon. Friends represent. I refer to people who live in remote villages, to those who live away from the railway lines and from the main roads in this country. I refer to those who do not possess cars. The bus users are among the less-well-off sections of our community.
It is of these people that we are talking in regard to maintaining a National Bus Company in public ownership. The one certain thing is that if we leave it to private operators, seeking profit, the remote villages in Humberside, for example, will never be served by any bus service whatsoever.
The history of private enterprise bus services before 1968 was one of application after application to traffic commisioners, asking for fares to go up. When the fares went up, the bus services lost custom. When they lost custom they applied to discontinue the service. This happened throughout wide areas of the country. These areas have become depopulated. They are now areas in which retired people have their homes—people who bought a nice little cottage in the country. Whole villages are comprised of retired persons with cars. This has taken the life from the countryside and from our rural communities. The people who formerly lived there have been priced out of living in these areas as a result of the lack of cheap public transport.
This regrettable situation is still continuing—I say this to my hon. Friends on the Front Bench—because of increasing transport costs and because the Government have not faced the problem. Not even in the consultative document have the Government faced the need to have a properly integrated transport policy. There is a bias in it, which one wants to see altered considerably. That bias, if I may say so in opposing the Bill, is in favour of roads, but it is not a bias in favour of the country roads and the rural road user.
The hon. Gentleman spoke in terms of overmanning in the bus industry. I should like to see where that overmanning is to be found. Time and time again my union has seen and co-operated in a reduction in platform staff. It has seen a reduction in the number of people used in the operation of these services, following the introduction of the one-man bus, the OMO. These buses have helped to stem the losses in the industry. Considerable time, energy and effort has been spent in my union members assuming further responsibilities in order to try to make the industry and the company more efficient.

The hon. Gentleman did not have the good fortune to be in the House at the time when the Transport Bill was going through in 1968. I do not blame him for that. Many are called, but few are chosen. But, had he been present during the passage of that Bill, he would have recalled the high hopes that the Labour Party entertained for the implementation of a properly integrated form of transport services.

It was regrettable that my right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton (Sir H. Wilson) called a General Election in June 1970. Probably nobody regrets it more than my right hon. Friend himself. The truth is that the impetus towards an integrated transport policy died after June 1970.

We want to get back to the common ideal that we all share on the Labour Benches, of having a proper system of transport, which considers the needs of the community as a whole and is not related to the quick buck and the quick profit. We want a bus system that is aimed at serving the pensioners, so that they can do their shopping. We want a bus system that ensures that children can get to school. We want a bus system that will not only maintain but revitalise life in the rural areas.

We want a National Bus Company that is not only publicly owned but is also properly integrated into a national transport system, so that instead of being afraid of subsidies we shall glory in them, because we shall ensure that we have efficient basic industries, financed out of public expenditure. Only in that way will private industry ever be able to make any sort of profit.

I oppose the Bill.

Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 13 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of Public Business):—

The House divided: Ayes 121, Noes 184.

Division No. 309.]
AYES
[5.30 p.m.


Adley, Robert
Bottomley, Peter
Clark, William (Croydon S)


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)


Awdry, Daniel
Brittan, Leon
Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)


Banks, Robert
Brotherton, Michael
Cope, John


Beith, A. J.
Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Crouch, David


Benyon, W.
Buck, Antony
Dean, Paul (N Somerset)


Berry, Hon Anthony
Budgen, Nick
Dodsworth, Geoffrey


Biffen, John
Carlisle, Mark
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Biggs-Davison, John
Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Dunlop, John




Durant, Tony
Knight, Mrs Jill
Rifkind, Malcolm


Dykes, Hugh
Lamont, Norman
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)


Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
Lawrence, Ivan
Ross, William (Londonderry


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)


Elliott, Sir William
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Royle, Sir Anthony


Farr, John
McCrindle, Robert
Scott-Hopkins, James


Finsberg, Geoffrey
Madel, David
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Shersby, Michael


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Marten, Neil
Silvester, Fred


Freud, Clement
Mates, Michael
Sims, Roger


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Mather, Carol
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)


Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Smith, Dudley (Warwick


Goodhart, Philip
Mayhew, Patrick
Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)


Goodhew, Victor
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)
Sproat, lain


Gray, Hamish
Mills, Peter
Stanley, John


Griffiths, Eldon
Moate, Roger
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Grlmond, Rt Hon J.
Molyneaux, James
Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)


Grist, Ian
Montgomery, Fergus
Stradling Thomas, J.


Grylls, Michael
Morris, Michael (Northampton S)
Tebbit, Norman


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)
Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)


Havers, Sir Michael
Newton, Tony
Trotter, Neville


Hayhoe, Barney
Osborn, John
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


Heseltine, Michael
Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)
Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek


Higgins, Terence L.
Pardoe, John
Wall, Patrick


Hunt, David (Wirral)
Pattie, Geoffrey
Warren, Kenneth


Hurd, Douglas
Pink, R. Bonner
Weatherill, Bernard


Hutchison, Michael Clark
Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch
Winterton, Nicholas


James, David
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Wood, Rt Hon Richard


Jenkin, Rt Hon P. (Wanst'd &amp; W'df'd)
Prior, Rt Hon James



Jessel, Toby
Rathbone, Tim
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Mr. Ian Gow and


Kershaw, Anthony
Renton, Rt. Hon Sir D. (Hunts)
Mr. Nigel Lawson.


Kimball, Marcus
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon





NOES


Allaun, Frank
Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)
McDonald, Dr Oonagh


Anderson, Donald
English, Michael
MacFarquhar, Roderick


Ashton, Joe
Ennals, David
MacKenzie, Gregor


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
McNamara, Kevin


Atkinson, Norman
Evans, loan (Aberdare)
Madden, Max


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Flannery, Martin
Magee, Bryan


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Fletcher, L. R. (Ilkeston)
Marks, Kenneth


Bates, Alf
Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)


Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Forrester, John
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)
Maynard, Miss Joan


Bidwell, Sydney
Freeson, Reginald
Meacher, Michael


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Mendelson, John


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Gilbert, Dr John
Mlkardo, Ian


Boyden, James (Bish Auck)
Ginsburg, David
Miliar,, Bruce


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Golding, John
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)


Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)
Gourlay, Harry
Miller, Mrs Millie (llford N)


Buchan, Norman
Graham, Ted
Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)


Buchanan, Richard
Grant, George (Morpeth)
Moorman, Eric


Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)
Grant, John (Islington C)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Cant, R. B.
Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick


Carmichael, Neil
Hardy, Peter
Newens, Stanley


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Harper, Joseph
Noble, Mike


Cartwright, John
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Oakes, Gordon


Castle, Rt Hon Barbara
Hart, Rt Hon Judith
Ogden, Eric


Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)
Hatton, Frank
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Cohen, Stanley
Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Owen, Dr David


Coleman, Donald
Heffer, Eric S.
Park, George


Colquhoun, Ms Maureen
Hooley, Frank
Parker, John


Conlan, Bernard
Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham, Sm H)
Parry, Robert


Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)
Huckfield, Les
Pavitt, Laurie


Corbett, Robin
Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)
Peart, Rt Hon Fred


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)
Pendry, Tom


Crawshaw, Richard
Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)
Panhaligon, David


Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Perry, Ernest


Cryer, Bob
Jeger, Mrs Lena
Price, C. (Lewistiam W)


Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiten)
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Price, William (Rugby)


Dalyell, Tam
Johnson, James (Hull West)
Richardson, Miss Jo


Davidson, Arthur
Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)


Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Robinson, Geoffrey


Dempsey, James
Kerr, Russell
Rodgers, George (Chorley)


Dormand, J. D.
Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Rooker, J. W.


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Lamborn, Harry
Roper, John


Duffy, A. E. P.
Latham, Arthur (Paddington)
Rowlands, Ted


Dunnett, Jack
Lee, John
Sandelson, Neville


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Llpton, Marcus
Shaw, Arnold (llford South)


Eadie, Alex
Litterick, Tom
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Edge, Geoff
Lomas, Kenneth
Short, Rt Hon E. (Newcastle C)


Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)
Loyden, Eddie
Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)




Silkin, Rt Hon John (Doptford)
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)
White, Frank R. (Bury)


Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)
Whitehead, Phillip


Silverman, Julius
Tinn, James
Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)


Skinner, Dennis
Tomlinson, John
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Small, William
Torney, Tom
Wilson, William (Coventry 9E)


Snape, Peter
Tuck, Raphael
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Spearing, Nigel
Urwin, T. W.
Woodall, Alec


Spniggs, Leslie
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Stallard, A. W.
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
Young, David (Bolton E)


Stoddart, David
Walker, Terry (Kings wood)



Strang, Gavin
Ward, Michael
TELLERS FOR THE NOES


Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley
Watkins, David
Mr. Neil Kinnock and


Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)
Watkinson, John
Mr. Bruce Grocott.


Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)
Weitzman, David

Question accordingly negatived.

HEALTH SERVICES BILL (ALLOCATION OF TIME)

Ordered,
That the Order of 20th July be varied as follows:—

(a) by substituting two allotted days for one allotted day in paragraph 2(1); and
(b) by substituting 'third day' for 'second day' in paragraph 2(2),
and paragraph 2 shall have effect accordingly.—[Mr. Ennals.]

BAIL BILL [Lords]

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

New Clause 2

RIGHT OF PROSECUTION TO APPLY FOR THE WITHDRAWAL OF BAIL

'Where bail has been granted in any of the circumstances specified in the preceding sections of this Act, the prosecution shall have the right to apply to a judge of the High Court for the withdrawal of that grant of bail'.—[Mr. Sims.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

5.42 p.m.

Mr. Roger Sims: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Oscar Murton): With this we may discuss Amendment No. 11, in Schedule 2, page 26, line 34, at end insert:
'and there shall be added—
(i) On the application of the prosecution to withdraw the granting of bail."'.

Mr. Sims: The purpose of the Bill is ostensibly to increase the likelihood of bail being granted, and I accept that that may well be its effect. There may be circumstances in which hitherto a court would not have granted bail, but in which, when the Bill becomes an Act, it would feel obliged to do so, depending, of course, upon the court's interpretation of the Act.
If at present a magistrates' court refuses bail the defendant has the right of appeal to a judge in chambers, who has the power to reverse the magistrate's decision. The clause and the amendment are designed to give the prosecution precisely similar rights. After all, there could be a case in which the police opposed bail for reasons they gave to the court but in which the court nevertheless granted bail. The police might feel quite genuinely that the criteria laid down in the Bill for withholding bail were met and that the magistrate's decision was wrong. As the Bill stands, nothing could be done.
Under my clause, the prosecution would have the right to appeal to a judge in chambers in exactly the same way as the defendant asks the judge to review the decision and, if he is so minded, to reverse it. The clause gives additional protection to the public, whose interests are more important than those of the defendant on remand. I hope that on those grounds the House will support the clause.

5.45 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Dr. Shirley Summer-skill: The effect of the new clause would be to give the prosecution the right to apply to a judge of the High Court for the withdrawal of bail. At present, there is no appeal against a court's decision to grant bail, though the court which granted it may also withdraw it. The amendment to Schedule 2 is presumably aimed at providing an appeal to the Court of Appeal against the grant of bail by the Crown court pending an appeal—though this is in any case unnecessary, since only the Court of Appeal has power to grant bail in such circumstances.
The basic issue here is whether the prosecution should be able to challenge a court's decision to grant a person bail. The Working Party on Bail Procedures in Magistrates' Courts considered but rejected a proposal that the prosecution should have the right to appeal against the grant of bail as a safeguard in the occasional cases where the police feel strongly that bail should not have been granted or when, after bail has been granted, new facts come to light, which suggest that the defendant should be in custody. The Government share the working party's view for the following reasons.
For the appeal to be effective it would obviously be necessary for the defendant to remain in custody until it had been determined—which would effectively negate the granting of bail. Secondly, the police already have wide powers to arrest without warrant a person who has been released on bail if they have reasonable grounds for believing that he is likely to abscond or breach the conditions of his bail, or for suspecting that he has broken any of those conditions. It seems preferable that the police should continue


to rely on these powers of arrest—which ensure that solid grounds exist for taking the person into custody—rather than to have a right of appeal against the initial decision to grant bail.
A third objection to the clause would be that such an appeal would be against a discretion exercised on fact rather than law, which would be difficult to test except by a full rehearing. There is no existing power to appeal against an acquittal on the ground that the facts, as distinct from the law, did not justify it.
The clause proposes that the right of appeal should lie only to a High Court judge. If such a right of appeal were given to the prosecution, it ought, in logic, to be determined at the same level as a further application for bail, following a refusal, is dealt with at present—that is, by a judge of the Crown court, where the defendant has been committed to that court, and by a High Court judge in other cases. This, however, would raise questions of legal representation for the purposes of the appeal, involving additional expenditure on legal aid, whether the defendant should have the right of a personal appearance before the judge—bail applications to a judge are normally dealt with in chambers in the absence of the defendant—and the need for additional judges to hear the appeals.
There is the further complication that since the clause is drafted in terms of bail granted
in any of the circumstances specified in the preceding sections
of the Bill, it would give the prosecution a right to apply to a High Court judge for the withdrawal of bail which has been granted by another High Court judge. In regard to applications for bail, the Rules of the Supreme Court specifically preclude an applicant to the High Court in any criminal proceedings who has been refused bail by a judge in chambers from making a fresh application for bail to any other judge or to a Divisional Court.
The amendment, the effect of which would be to add words to Section 36 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968, is unnecessary. No court other than the Court of Appeal itself can grant bail to an appellant; hence, there is no need to provide for the prosecution to be able to apply to the same court for its withdrawal.
I hope that the reasons I have given—particularly since they are supported by the working party's view on this matter—will persuade the hon. Member that the Government cannot accept the clause or the amendment.

Question put and negatived.

Clause 10

EXTENSION AND EXERCISE OF CORONERS' POWERS TO GRANT BAIL

Dr. Summerskill: I beg to move Amendment No. 1, in page 12, line 29, leave out 'at' and insert 'before'.
This is a minor drafting amendment, consequential upon the acceptance in Committee of a group of Government amendments, the effect of which was to make it clear that a person surrendering to his bail surrenders into the custody of the court. The amendment brings the wording of Clause 10 into line with that used in Clause 2(2) and elsewhere in the Bill, specifying where a person bailed is under a duty to appear. As a result of the amendment, a person granted bail by a coroner, like a person granted bail by a magistrates' court on committal for trial at the Crown court, will be under a duty to appear before the Crown court, not at the Crown court.

Amendment agreed to.

Schedule 1

PERSONS ENTITLED TO BAIL: SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS

Dr. Summerskill: I beg to move Amendment No. 3, in page 15, line 26 after 'this', insert 'Part of this'.
The need for this minor drafting amendment arises from the division of Schedule 1 into parts, by amendments accepted in Committee. Paragraph 5 of Part I provides, in effect, that the presumption in favour of the grant of bail to persons accused or convicted of offences punishable with imprisonment shall not apply where there has been insufficient time to obtain the information which the court needs in order to take the various decisions required by the other provisions in Part I.
The reference in paragraph 5, as drafted, to "this schedule" would have


the effect of applying this criterion to the whole of Schedule 1, thereby allowing a remand in custody on these grounds of a person charged with an offence not punishable with imprisonment. The Government did not intend this, and the amendment is designed to avoid such an interpretation.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Robert Kilroy-Silk: I beg to move Amendment No. 4, in page 15, line 33, leave out paragraph 7.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may discuss the following amendments:
No. 5, in page 15, line 38, leave out paragraph 8.
No. 6, in page 15, line 39, after 'court', insert
'after hearing the evidence of a probation officer thereon'.

Mr. Kilroy-Silk: Amendment No. 4 would prevent the presumption of bail in cases of remand for inquiries or reports from being overridden because a court has decided to impose a prison sentence unless induced not to do so by the inquiries or the report.
In 1974, the Advisory Council on the Penal System produced a thorough and detailed report on young adult offenders. The distinguished council had 19 members and was chaired by the late Sir Kenneth Younger. In considering remands in custody, it devoted a considerable amount of time to remands in custody for psychiatric reports, which was understandable, as one of its members was the distinguished forensic scientist, Dr. Peter Scott. The council concluded:
We do not consider that the need for a psychiatric report justifies a remand in custody when bail would otherwise be granted.
In other words, if a report is required and a court believes that, if given bail, a convicted person would probably abscond, commit a further offence, or interfere with the course of justice, or that he needs to be detained to protect him from the vengeance of private citizens, by all means let him be remanded in custody. However, if none of those considerations applies, a remand in custody for reports amounts to sending a person to prison in order that he

should see a doctor—which he could equally well do as an out-patient.
It is absurd to remand a person in custody simply to see a psychiatrist. As Professor Gibbens, of the Institute of Psychiatry, has repeatedly pointed out, the conditions of prison society restrict the value of psychiatric observation. Anyone with any idea of prison conditions, or who can imagine them, will readily admit that prisons are not the proper or appropriate place in which to conduct any kind of medical, social or, least of all, psychiatric assessment of an offender.
The Bill recognises the advisory council's recommendations only up to a point. It provides for the presumption of bail if an adjournment is necessary for the purposes of inquiries or reports, subject to the exceptions that I have already mentioned, but it makes two further exceptions which the advisory council did not advocate and which would lessen the value of the presumption of bail considerably.
Amendment No. 4 would delete the exception of a court which has decided to impose a prison sentence unless induced not to do so by the content of the inquiries or reports. I hope that the Under-Secretary is in a more charitable and magnanimous mood than was her hon. Friend the Minister of State in Committee.
The principal reason for opposing these powers of custody is that they are not necessary. If there is no probability of a person absconding, committing a further offence, or obstructing the course of justice, and if it is not necessary to remand him in custody for his own protection, it cannot be necessary to imprison him unless and until he is sentenced to imprisonment for the substantive offence with which he is charged. To put him in prison when there is no practical necessity for doing so, purely on the ground that a prison sentence is likely to be imposed, is based on the notion that he should begin his sentence before it is imposed by the court. That is a highly dubious proposition, to say the least.
The whole point of making reports and inquiries is to determine whether a prison sentence is appropriate, yet in the Bill we are allowing the court to override the presumption of bail because it believes, in the absence of inquiries and reports,


that it will pass a sentence of imprisonment on a defendant.
6.0 p.m.
There is one further very important problem connected with such an exception. It would differ from all other reasons for refusing bail, in that in practice it would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to appeal successfully against it to a judge in chambers, who could really then challenge what was in the mind of the court when it refused bail. The amendment would, therefore, delete an undesirable exception to the very desirable general presumption that a person who had not been sentenced to imprisonment should be kept out of prison.
Amendment No. 5 would prevent the presumption of bail in cases of remands for inquiries or reports from being overridden because it appears to the court that it would be impracticable to complete the inquiries or obtain the report without keeping the defendant in custody. As the Bill stands, it provides for a presumption that bail will be granted where an adjournment is necessary for the purposes of inquiries or reports. Rightly, it makes 'this subject to certain well-defined and well-established exceptions—where the court, again, believes that the defendant, if given bail, will abscond, will commit further offences, and so on or, again, if he needs to be remanded in custody for his own protection. To that extent the Bill is in line with one of the recommendations of the advisory council.
However, as I said, the Bill makes two further exceptions to this presumption of bail, which the report did not advocate and which would lessen the value of the presumption of bail considerably, and which to a large extent vitiate the principle—the very valuable principle, which is supported by both sides of the House—that underlies the Bill. This amendment would delete the second of those exceptions—where it appears to the court that it would be impracticable to complete the inquiries or to obtain the report without keeping the defendant in custody.
To make an exception to the presumption of bail where it appears to the court that it would otherwise be impracticable to obtain a report could drive a coach and horses through the presumption. The

impracticability of obtaining reports has been accepted for far too long as a reason for refusing bail and as a reason for remanding in custody. The advisory council considered this issue again very carefully. It found that
There seems to be no shortage of psychiatrists willing to undertake assessments on bail. We understood that courts sometimes complained that psychiatrists outside the prison service take longer to prepare their reports, but in other respects they appear well satisfied with reports prepared on bail.
That report was published over two years ago. Since then there have been a number of developments that make it even less likely that it should prove impracticable to arrange a report whilst a person is remanded on bail. For example, the Home Office circular of October 1975, on bail procedures, observed then that the Home Office Working Party on Bail Procedures in Magistrates' Courts had
noted that in some areas the probation service maintained a list of doctors and psychiatrists who are prepared to do court work and expressed the view…that every court should have such a list available to it, in order to ensure that the fullest use is made of existing facilities. The Secretary of State asks that, where no such arrangement now exists the clerk to the justices should consult the local health authorities with a view to compiling such a list and keeping it up to date.
There would seem to be no reason for not remanding persons on bail because of the impracticability of obtaining reports. We have, therefore, not only the Advisory Council on the Penal System in support of the amendment, but the Home Office circular itself. The excuse of impracticability has been put to the test over the last few years, since the Home Office set up, for example, out-patient facilities at Holloway, Brixton, Risley, and Durham prisons and at which offenders on bail could be psychiatrically examined by prison doctors.
Although these facilities were initially established in response to complaints from the courts about the difficulty of getting offenders on bail examined at local hospitals, it seems that they have been grossly under-used since they were first set up. At Holloway, for instance, in 1974 over 1,000 women were remanded in custody for medical reports, yet only 28 of those women were referred to the out-patient department in the same year. Similarly, 3,000 offenders were remanded to Brixton Prison for reports in 1974, but only 120


of those were sent to the prison's out-patient clinic. Yet in the Bill we have, in a sense, the temerity to talk of the impracticability of receiving reports of this kind when the facilities that are available are for one reason or another not used to their full extent.
When these facts are brought to the notice of the courts concerned, particularly those in the London area, which are responsible for a disproportionately high number of custodial medical remands, the courts now say that local hospital out-patient facilities adequately meet the needs of offenders on bail. The report of the work of the Prison Department in 1974 stated that
Comments from the London courts indicated that, in general, they found the facilities at local hospitals were adequate for nearly all those who fulfilled their criteria for bail.
We have the Advisory Council, the Home Office circular and the Home Office Prison Department all saying that the paragraph that I am seeking to delete from the Bill is in any event unnecessary. Therefore, not only is the impracticability of obtaining reports on bail exploded by the advisory council in its report on young adult offenders; experience since has underlined the validity of the point made in that report.
I therefore urge my hon. Friend the Uunder-Secretary to think very seriously on this issue before she replies to what I hope will be a debate on these amendments. I urge her genuinely to consider whether it is not still possible, even at this late stage, to accept certainly Amendment No. 5 but also Amendment No. 4, and to strengthen the Bill accordingly, not only to make sure that the principle of presumption of bail is applied—and applied particularly to those who are least able to defend themselves and are most in need of this kind of protection—but so that we shall not feel it necessary to rewrite the Bill in the next Session. We have an opportunity to make an important contribution towards progressive penal reform. I hope that my hon. Friend will grasp that opportunity vigorously this evening.

Mr. Mark Carlisle: I support the hon. Member for Ormskirk (Mr. Kilroy-Silk) on these amendments. As the Under Secretary will see, my name

appears on the first two of the amendments to which the hon. Gentleman has spoken. When I put down these amendments, I did so not knowing that the hon. Gentleman had already done the same. To an extent I did so as a probing exercise, particularly with regard to inquiring what the word "impracticable" meant in these circumstances. However, while I am interested in hearing what the hon. Lady says in reply to the debate, I should need a considerable amount of persuading that Amendment No. 4 is not an amendment that the House should attempt to make to the Bill at this stage.
As I understand the position and the schedule, the whole purpose of the Bill is to make bail more likely to be granted by providing a presumption of bail which the courts shall allow other than in the circumstances set out in the schedule—namely, the obvious circumstances that the person may fail to surrender to custody, may commit another offence or may interfere with witnesses.
The whole idea behind the Bill was the concern which has been expressed on both sides of the House over several years that the number of people in prison who have not been convicted or sentenced is alarmingly high. They are the people who live in the worst crowded conditions of all, which impose considerable strains both on the individuals themselves and on the staff. To the extent that the Bill will help in reducing this number, I support it.
Of course there must be some exceptions, but the exception in paragraph 7 of Schedule 1 seems to go to the root of the provision of a presumption of bail and, if seriously interpreted would remove that presumption entirely. What circumstances does the Home Office envisage when it talks about the adjournment of a case for the purpose of inquiries or reports? I take it that we are talking about those who have already been convicted of the offence when the court is deciding what to do about them.
If we are talking about probation or social inquiry reports, the purpose there is to decide whether someone should be sent to prison. I think that social inquiry reports are usually available before the trial or before sentence. When a report is not available, the only purpose of adjourning to get a report is that it is a necessary prerequisite to sending to prison someone who has not been to prison before.
It therefore follows that if the court is deciding what to do with someone who has been convicted, it would adjourn to get a report only if it was certainly of the mind to send him to prison. If not, it would not bother to adjourn to get a social inquiry report: there would be no point.
The clause says that bail need not be granted in these circumstances if the court has decided to impose a sentence of imprisonment but is induced not to do so by the matters disclosed by the inquiry. In 99 cases out of 100, that is bound to be the position. There is no point in getting a report when the court is minded to send the offender to prison unless there is something in the report which persuades it not to do so.
The court is therefore left in the impossible position of distinguishing between remanding with the intention of getting social inquiry reports when it is minded to send someone to prison and yet still being able to be induced not to imprison him by what is disclosed by the reports. That seems a totally artificial distinction.
The effect of paragraph 7 is that, when a court remands for inquiries before someone is imprisoned, the presumption of bail will not apply because the court has decided to imprison. This drives a coach and horses through the rest of Schedule 1 and is totally contrary to the purpose of the schedule.
Of course, it may be argued that in many cases a court may say "We shall send this man to prison. We must get an inquiry report first, but we will not grant bail because it is so clear to him that he will go to prison that there is a strong likelihood that he will not surrender to his bail." But that is covered already by paragraph 2.

6.15 p.m.

Mr. Neville Sandelson: I am impressed by the logic of the hon. and learned Gentleman's argument about this paragraph and expect to be impressed by his arguments on the other paragraph. But although paragraph 7 does not suggest that the term of imprisonment may be affected by reports—particularly social inquiry reports—does not the hon. and learned Gentleman agree that there are circumstances in which a court is minded to send an offender to prison but is uncertain what the sentence should be until it has obtained

such reports? I concede that there is no suggestion to that effect in the paragraph, but it is a situation which should be considered. I shall be interested in what the hon and learned Gentleman has to say.

Mr. Carlisle: Of course the court may want reports to help it to assess the length of sentence, but, with respect, that does not answer the point of my argument. If the court thinks that the person is unlikely to turn up for sentence, it can already refuse him bail under the provision about failing to surrender. If the court has decided to send him to prison but has not decided on the length of sentence and thinks that a report would help—and also thinks that he will turn up—if there is to be a general presumption of bail it should apply in that case as well, and those inquiries should be able to be made while he is out on bail.
The value of a social inquiry is much greater in the circumstances in which the offender lives than in the artificial circumstances of prison, with the family interviewed separately. At the moment therefore, I am minded to support the hon. Member if he presses the amendment.
I support everything that the hon. Member said about the other type of report, which presumably is a medical report. Surely we want to encourage medical reports being obtained outside prisons. I am depressed by the figures that the hon. Member quoted, from a recent circular which we both received, showing how little used are out-patient facilities in prison. They were provided in 1971 in a deliberate effort to get psychiatric reports outside prison rather than inside, meeting the argument that psychiatric reports could not be obtained unless the person was in custody.
In the case of Amendment No. 5, what do the Government mean by the provision that it may be "impracticable" to complete inquiries without keeping a defendant in custody? I can see the necessity for some provision when the only way in which reports can be obtained is if the person is in custody, but the word "impracticable" seems rather wide and could he used as a reason for refusing bail in any case. I hope that more use will be made of prison out-patient facilities in obtaining psychiatric reports.
Coming back to Amendment No. 4, it may be argued that one of the circumstances in which a report might be wanted and in which it is right to keep someone in custody when the court has decided, subject to the contents of the report, to send him to prison might be the question of a medical report and that the report might help the court to decide between a hospital or custody. The offender might be clearly unsafe to be let out, but it is a question whether he should go to prison or be remanded to Broad-moor. That is adequately covered by the words of paragraph 3, which says that a person can always be kept in custody when necessary for his own welfare. Therefore, I can see no object in paragraph 7, unless it is to defeat the whole principle of the schedule. I hope that the Home Office may think again.

Mr. David Weitzman: I agree with what the hon. and learned Member for Runcorn (Mr. Carlisle) said about the width of the word "impracticable" in paragraph 8. I am only sorry that we did not notice it in Committee, because something should have been done about it then. I failed in my duty. Subject to that, however, I can appreciate the need for paragraph 8.
There is considerable force in what my hon. Friend the Member for Ormskirk (Mr. Kilroy-Silk) said in moving his amendment to delete paragraph 7. We start with the presumption that in the ordinary way a person should be given bail, subject to the exceptions set out in paragraph 2. Paragraph 7 deals with the situation in which the court
has decided to impose a sentence of imprisonment unless it is induced not to do so by the matters disclosed by the inquiries or contained in the report".
What does that mean? The court has not sentenced the defendant. It has merely decided to do so. As a result of a report, the court may well decide not to impose a sentence of imprisonment but to make a probation order. In those circumstances, is it right that the defendant should not be granted bail and that the presumption should be removed? After all, he may not be subject to any of the exceptions in paragraph 2.
Therefore, there is great force in my hon. Friend's argument. It does not seem to me that paragraph 7 is right to say that a person should not be granted bail unless the court
is induced not to do so by the matters disclosed by the inquiries or contained in the report.
I support my hon. Friend's argument about that.

Mr. Edward Lyons: I support my hon. Friend the Member for Ormskirk (Mr. Kilroy-Silk) and the hon. and learned Member for Runcorn (Mr. Carlisle). There is confusion in the courts. They seem to take the view that they should not only consider whether bail should be granted in accordance with the normal criteria but should assume the role of medical experts and decide the circumstances in which the examination of the defendant should take place. That is a confusion of function. The courts should restrict themselves to the ordinary bail criteria and leave it to the doctor who is to examine the patient to decide whether he or she needs to use out-patient facilities or in-patient facilities.
Because a person who is remanded for psychiatric examination after conviction knows that there is often a chance of not being sent to prison, he is normally very anxious to co-operate. If a psychiatrist said "It seems to me that I need to examine you in hospital", the patient would almost certainly agree. If he did not, there are other avenues that the doctor could use to ensure that the patient could be seen inside a hospital.
Most medical remands occur in magistrates' courts. Magistrates and their clerks seem to remain blissfully unaware of the existence of out-patient facilities. Consequently, unless they are prevented from doing it they will continue without too much inquiry—on the basis of erroneous assumptions that out-patient facilities do not exist—to send thousands of people a year to prisons which are already overcrowded, so that they may be medically examined. It is a contradiction in terms that people one thinks to be sick and to need medical treatment should be sent to a prison.
Furthermore, doctors have made it clear many times that they prefer to see people in their natural habitat. If they are seen


in prison, they have already been told what to say by old lags who will often give them the wrong advice. Therefore, it is advisable that as far as possible people should be examined outside rather than inside, and that magistrates should no longer seek the rôle of medical men. I am a recorder. If one sees someone who looks pretty strange, one has a temptation to set oneself up as an amateur doctor. But it is a temptation to be resisted.
Those who sit in a judicial capacity are told very little about out-patient facilities. Until I went into the matter for the purposes of the Bill, I did not know of their existence. I say that to my shame. If the higher courts do not know, what do the magistrates and their clerks know about out-patient facilities? There is ample evidence that, at any rate in London, there are out-patient facilities which are being dramatically under-used.
Therefore, it seems to me that those who support Amendments Nos. 4 and 5 have a point. My Amendment No. 6 is less far-reaching, not because I do not support Amendments Nos. 4 and 5 but because my experience of the Government is that their normal answer is "No". Therefore, I have tabled an amendment the implications of which are less wide. It suggests that before a person is deprived of bail on the grounds of impracticability the advice of a probation officer should be sought. Probation officers will be much more alive to the existence of out-patient facilities than the court or its clerk will be.
The Government should not feel very bad about accepting the amendment, if they will not accept the main amendments which involve leaving out paragraphs. My amendment would mean that no magistrate or judge could send a person to prison merely for medical examination without hearing a probation officer, who would presumably be aware of the availability or otherwise of out-patient treatment. It may be that in certain parts of the country there are no out-patient facilities. Too often we tend simply to look at London. If the probation officer, having made due inquiries, says that there are no such facilities, the judge will at least have some ground for proceeding further.
At present there is no test laid down in paragraph 8 as to how the judge should interpret "impracticable". The paragraph says
if it appears to the court that it would be impracticable",
but nowhere does it say what criteria the court should adopt before coming to the conclusion that it would be
impracticable to complete the inquiries or make the report without keeping the defendant in custody.
That is a great fault of the paragraph.
In 1974, 12,500 people were remanded in custody by magistrates for medical reports. I believe that only 12 per cent. were given psychiatric disposals at the end. Most of these people do not have to be sent to a mental hospital.
These are matters to be considered. I ask the Government to accept the amendments. I hope that they have been impressed by the unanimity shown by lawyers on both sides of the House. When lawyers want reform, everyone knows that the case must be good.

6.30 p.m.

Mr. William Wilson: I shall not get involved in the argument whether magistrates are more knowledgeable than those who sit in the High Court. I was surprised that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Lyons) confessed his ignorance of out-patient facilities.
I hope that the Minister will accept Amendment No. 4, which would delete paragraph 7. We all accept that the word "impracticable" in paragraph 8 is an unhappy choice. Subsequent reports may be required, but speaking from many years' experience, I hope that my hon. Friend will agree to the deletion of paragraph 7. Although I am unhappy about "impracticable", I am content otherwise with paragraph 8.

Mr. Ivan Lawrence: I am not sure that I am unanimous with my lawyer colleagues. I can see strong reasons why the amendments should not be accepted by the Government. My support for the Government will probably make them agree to the amendments, and that will be a cause for rejoicing in the camp of those who put them forward.
I am moved by the strength of the arguments which have been advanced by speakers on both sides of the House, particularly those in favour of the deletion of paragraph 8. Nevertheless, as long as paragraph 7 remains in the schedule, power is given to the court to remand a first offender in custody. It may well be that few first offenders should receive a sentence of imprisonment, but there will be cases where the offence committed is so severe that it is appropriate that a prison sentence should be imposed even upon a first offender. The effect of the amendment is to require the granting of bail in all circumstances where a report has to be received before the sentencing of a first offender. That is not a desirable fetter to place upon the hands of the judiciary.
Section 14 of the Criminal Justice Act 1972 places no restriction, qualification or limitation upon the requirement that there must be no other method than imprisonment of dealing with a first offender before he is sentenced. The requirement is that the court shall not pass sentence of imprisonment, however serious the offence, on a person who has attained the age of 21 if he is a first offender unless the court has satisfied itself that there is no other appropriate method of dealing with him.
It is always right that proper and due consideration should be given to the sentencing of all offenders. Particularly is that a most anxious question when dealing with a first offender. It may be that most judges will want to consider carefully, even where it might reasonably be thought that a sentence of imprisonment was the only solution, whether there was some other way out. That way out could be discovered only by putting off the sentence until reports were available. In those circumstances, it is a wholly unnecessary gesture of magnanimity to an offender, who may almost certainly in the end have to go to prison, that the judiciary should be fettered by the amendment, which would oblige the offender to be released on bail.

Mr. Kilroy-Silk: The hon. Gentleman is making a great meal of this. If he feels that the amendment, which deletes an exception in a Bill which gives a presumption of bail, is such a fettering of

the judiciary, I presume that he is against the whole Bill and the principles enshrined in it. The Bill says that there shall be a presumption of bail. Paragraph 7 makes an exception for cases where the judiciary has a mind to pass a sentence of imprisonment subject to inquiries and report. All the evidence is that the vast majority of those who are subject to psychiatric and medical reports do not in the end receive a prison sentence.

Mr. Lawrence: In those circumstances, the words—
need not be granted bail
would be exercised in favour of the first offender who was about to be sentenced. It does not necessarily follow if the paragraph is retained that bail will be refused for all such persons. The courts do not operate in that way.
The hon. Gentleman is right. I am not happy about the Bill. I do not wish to repeat the arguments—I am sure he has done me the courtesy of reading them—which I advanced in the Second Reading debate. Accepting that it is desirable that there should be a presumption of bail according to the terms of the Bill, I see no reason for saying that there should not be this exception to the presumption of bail.
The amendment would place a fetter upon a judge who was almost certain in his mind that it was in the public interest, and in the interest of the offender, that the offender should in due course go to prison even though every possible attempt should be made to avoid his doing so. If the judge felt himself forced to say "I think the offence is so heinous that I shall not even call for reports because I can see here and now, without ever considering the situation, that there is no question of this man not going to prison", in such circumstances would that not be an undesirable step for this House to take?
The cause which hon. Members on both sides of the House pursue—for the maximum degree of acceptable civil liberties—would probably not be served if judges were rushed into taking a decision as final as taking away the liberty of the subject by a period of imprisonment when one very last opportunity might possibly be found to base an argument on the reports for not doing so.

Mr. W. R. Rees-Davies: One of the points which have been overlooked is that paragraph 7 does not require the court in public to state its decision to impose a sentence of imprisonment. Therefore, paragraph 7 as it stands can enable a court to keep a person in custody without stating that it had decided to impose a sentence of imprisonment. Would not my hon. Friend agree that the paragraph should at least be amended if it is to contain the power that he maintains it should contain?

Mr. Lawrence: With great respect to my hon. and learned Friend, with whose opinions on this and many other matters I usually agree—and even when I do not I have great respect for his view—I am not sure that what he says would be the most sensible course. Presumably, it would mean that the court would have to say "We have decided to send you to prison unless we have a change of heart as a result of any further reports." I am not sure that that would be an improvement in the law.

Mr. William Wilson: Is it not a fact that already the court may say to a man "We are thinking of sending you to prison, but you have to have legal representation before we finally decide"? The point that the hon. Gentleman is making already arises when the court indicates the decision to send the offender to prison but it gives him a further opportunity to take legal advice. There is nothing new in it.

Mr. Lawrence: I am not suggesting that there is. Perhaps I gave a rather bad reply to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Thanet, West (Mr. Rees-Davies). I meant that I could see no advantage in writing that into the Bill. It is said on many occasions anyway, and where it is not said I am not sure that there would be any great advantage in requiring it to be said, because, for example, it might cause unnecessary alarm or despondency among members of the accused person's family.
Another matter arises out of the amendment to paragraph 7 which has been referred to by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Runcorn (Mr. Carlisle). He spoke of the assumption that a prison sentence was intended and there really was not a great deal of

point in pretending otherwise. But, of course, a sentence of imprisonment does not necessarily mean an effective sentence of imprisonment.
6.45 p.m.
A sentence of imprisonment might in due course be imposed but be suspended. It might be suspended because, by the time the judge received the report, he might be persuaded that a suspended sentence with a supervision order under Section 12 of the 1972 Act might be appropriate. Therefore, it does not necessarily follow that a judge has to say either that there will be a prison sentence or that there will not be a prison sentence. The judge may say "There ought to be a prison sentence, but I must await the reports to see whether there is anything in them which will enable me to suspend that sentence, with a supervision order."
That is a further refinement with regard to sentencing. It is a further complication, which seems to me undesirable, that a judge would not only be fettered but would be pushed, as it were, over the line at which he might just save somebody from going to prison by keeping him in custody while reflecting upon the reports.
Finally, I am not sure that everybody would agree with hon. Members who have suggested that it is better for a probation officer to make a social inquiry report in the home. It is, of course, important that the social inquiry officer should see the home and the person's background and know something of the circumstances which would apply if a man were not sent to prison. Equally, a rapport can be achieved between the social inquiry officer and the prisoner if the inquiry is removed from the home background and from the influence of the wife, children and family. A degree of honesty and openness can perhaps be achieved which I am not sure by any means is always disadvantageous to the full benefit of a social inquiry report.
I am not saying that it is undesirable that a probation report should be taken in the home. What I am saying is that, equally, it is not as black and white as some hon. Members have said and that it might not be undesirable for probation reports to be taken when the person


concerned is in custody. It is an open question, and it is much more complicated than it appears, and in my view there are good reasons why paragraph 7 should remain part of the Bill.
As I said when I started, I am less happy about the meaning of paragraph 8 and I tend to support the criticisms of it levied by my hon. Friends, in particular, by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Runcorn.

Mr. Edward Lyons: I believe that the hon. Gentleman is labouring under a misapprehension. The reference is not to a probation officer visiting the home of a defendant but, where possible, to a psychiatrist seeing the patient in his home circumstances.

Mr. Lawrence: I can correct the hon. and learned Gentleman. I am not labouring under any misapprehension. The point that I make about the probation officer applies equally to psychiatrists, in my experience.

Mr. Rees-Davies: I shall be brief, but I admit that I find these two amendments by no means easy. First, with regard to paragraph (8), I agree entirely with what my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Runcorn (Mr. Carlisle) had to say about the word "impracticable". Presumably this is intended to deal with medical cases. I ask that as a question. Is it entirely intended to deal with the occasion when a case is adjourned for inquiries or report and the court finds that, by reason of the defendant's medical condition or something of that kind, it is not possible for the inquiries to be made and the report completed without keeping the defendant in custody? Would not some such words as "with all reasonable effort it is not possible to complete the inquiries" be better than "impracticable"? As it stands, I find paragraph 8 confusing and I am not sure that it is necessary.
The case must be rare when one needs to keep somebody in custody purely by reason of medical matters. I suppose that one could instance as a class of case that of an alcoholic who was refusing to have any kind of medical examination. In such circumstances, it might be said to be impracticable to complete the

inquiries or that one could not do it with all reasonable effort.
It is a pity that we are coming to this matter so late and, as I understand it, we cannot make an amendment, the matter having been to the other place for full consideration and having had careful consideration also in the Standing Committee. I shall be interested to hear what my hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Fylde (Mr. Gardner) has to say about paragraph 8 in the light of what has so far been said, and I look forward also to hearing the hon. Lady the Under-Secretary of State. I have a fairly open mind, but I am unhappy about paragraph 8 as it stands for the reasons already given.
I am unhappy about paragraph 7 for a different reason. I should like the court to have power to keep a defendant in custody where it had definitely decided to impose a sentence of imprisonment in the ordinary way but where nevertheless it wanted inquiries for a report—almost certainly of a medical nature, or perhaps of a psychiatric nature from an appropriate probation officer. In such circumstances, having in due course seen the psychiatric report or the report of the medical officers concerned, the court might then change its view and decide not to impose the sentence of imprisonment which it had originally in mind.
I do not trust paragraph 7. It does not impose upon the court any duty to inform the accused or the public that that is the decision which it has made in the inner processes of its thought. Regrettably, this paragraph could therefore be a charter for the sort of member of the judiciary—magistrate or otherwise, as the case may be—who wishes to keep somebody in prison but does not want to disclose the reasons.
On that ground, I am opposed to paragraph 7 as it stands. If it were suitably amended I should be in favour of it, provided that the matters to which I have referred were clarified. All my hon. Friends and hon. Members opposite who are familiar with these matters know that judges not infrequently indicate an intention to pass a sentence of imprisonment but they wish to avoid doing so if it would cause harm as a result of the


mental disorder or psychiatric condition of the person concerned.
There used to be many such cases in the application of the law relating to homosexual offences. In such cases the courts clearly would impose a sentence of imprisonment, and would say so, but sometimes, having heard a psychiatrist who undertook to take a homosexual patient into a home or hospital to undergo treatment for a substantial period, and subject also to a condition of residence, they were willing not to impose a sentence of imprisonment.
For the reasons I have indicated, I find paragraph 7 as it stands unacceptable unless the hon. Lady or my hon. Friends are able to persuade me otherwise.

Dr. Summerskill: I have listened carefully to the informed legal opinion expressed from both sides of the House on these three amendments, and I shall deal first with Amendments Nos. 4 and 5. These amendments would remove from Part I of Schedule 1 the power of a court to refuse bail when adjourning a case after the defendant's conviction but before passing sentence in the two situations which we are considering.
Both the paragraphs which the amendments are designed to remove were added to the Bill in Committee without a Division. They formed part of Government amendments moved in accordance with undertakings given in another place to restrict the grounds on which bail could be refused to persons remanded after conviction but before sentence. They were thought necessary because otherwise the court would be obliged to release a defendant even if it were virtually certain that the defendant would receive a custodial sentence or if there were no real possibility of the report or inquiries being completed within a reasonable time if the defendant were not in prison. The Magistrates' Association in particular strongly urged the Government that these two situations needed to be covered.
Paragraph 7 follows the recommendation in paragraph 148 of the report of the Working Party on Bail Procedures in Magistrates' Courts. It is aimed at avoiding a requirement being placed on magistrates to release a defendant on bail even though it is virtually certain that he will subsequently receive a custodial sentence.

Admittedly, it is true that where the magistrates have formed the intention, subject to what the report may say, of passing a custodial sentence, and where this is already apparent to the defendant, the likelihood of his absconding will be substantially increased. Bail could accordingly be refused on this ground. Moreover, under paragraph 10(a) of Part I, one of the factors that the court is required to take into account when taking the bail decision is the probable method of dealing with the defendant for the offence.
The Government's view until now was that it was more straightforward to include a specific provision that bail need not be granted in this circumstance rather than to leave it to the magistrates to use the more complex argument of the likelihood of absconding. However, having listened carefully to what hon. Members have said—the majority apparently wishing to see paragraph 7 deleted—in deference to the views of the House I am prepared to accept Amendment No. 4.
I should add a word with regard to what was said by the hon. and learned Member for Runcorn (Mr. Carlisle). Would he not agree—this is a rhetorical question—that it must be remembered that many reports are asked for when it is not obligatory to have a report? For instance, the defence may want one as a last hope that it will find some mitigating circumstance, and it may actually succeed in that object. If in such a case the magistrates cannot remand in custody, they can refuse to adjourn for a report at all, and if this is their only choice they may well do that, so that the amendment could well be counter-productive by resulting in fewer inquiries. That is an argument in favour of retaining the paragraph.
Paragraph 8 is based on Section 18(6) of the Criminal Justice Act 1967. The supporters of the amendment attack this provision on the ground that it should always be possible to have inquiries made or reports prepared while a defendant is on bail. The Goverment agree that reports should be obtained in this way whenever possible, and recommendations to this effect were included in Home Office Circular No. 155/1975. It is usually better on medical grounds for a report of a defendant's physical or mental condition


to be made elsewhere than in prison, though there are a few exceptions to which I shall come.
7.0 p.m.
Where a defendant would require observation over a period, he could be placed in a hospital if a place were available. The Committee on Mentally Abnormal Offenders, which reported in October 1975, recommended that a court should have power to make an order remanding to hospital for a report a person who appeared to be mentally disordered. This recommendation and others made by the committee, are being considered by the Government.
I accept the figures given by my hon. Friend the Member for Ormskirk (Mr. Kilroy-Silk) concerning people remanded in custody for medical reports. However, it still remains true that some people cannot effectively be examined except in custody, and there are circumstances, as I shall show, in which it is impracticable to obtain a report except by remanding the defendant in custody. Admittedly these circumstances have diminished as a result of efforts made in the last few years, but they still occur and must be provided for.
First, there is the case of a defendant who cannot be relied upon to turn up for the inquiries or the report, either because he is mentally disturbed or because he is unwilling to have inquiries carried out. Secondly, there is a category of person on whom a satisfactory report can be prepared only while he is in custody. In 1973 the Prison Department, on behalf of the Working Party on Bail Procedures in Magistrates' Courts, consulted the governors and medical officers on this matter. The result was that, although such people form only part of the defendants remanded in custody—a part varying widely in different areas of the country, but a significant part—they were in general the itinerant, often mentally disordered misfits in society, perhaps verminous or displaying evidence of drug-taking or alcoholism, with no relatives or friends and unlikely to remain in one place. Those people are unlikely to turn up for reports.
Thirdly, there may be difficulties in obtaining a report in the three-week remand period. This is no longer a general prob-

lem. However, out-patient facilities at hospitals for psychiatric examination are often hard pressed, particularly at holiday periods. It is sometimes impracticable, although we hope rarely, to conduct medical examinations in a particular area at a particular time.
The main argument for this provision is the first—namely, that it is impracticable to examine some individuals unless they are held in custody. I emphasise to the movers and supporters of these two amendments the words "need not" in both paragraphs. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Mr. Weitzman)—it might have been a slip of the tongue—referred to "should not" be granted bail. The words are "need not", and there is a court discretion in both these paragraphs. If the paragraphs were taken out, these situations would be exempted. I hope I have got that right.

Mr. Charles Fletcher-Cooke: The hon. Lady surely means that if, for example, paragraph 8 remained in, there would still be discretion; the refusal of bail is not obligatory.

Dr. Summerskill: I am obliged. That is exactly what I was trying to say.

Mr. Kilroy-Silk: I am glad that my hon. Friend, after giving a list of reasons why it is considered in some circumstances to be impracticable, came back to what she called her main argument which was twofold: first, that if a person was likely to abscond or, secondly, was mentally ill, he might not co-operate or turn up for the report. On the first point, a person who is likely to abscond is covered adequately already by the previous part of the schedule. Secondly, if the defendant is so mentally ill or disturbed that he is unwilling or unable to co-operate in a report, presumably he is a likely candidate for committal to a mental hospital. I cannot see that my hon. Friend has made out the argument against taking out paragraph 8.

Dr. Summerskill: I cannot accept what my hon. Friend has said. I gave a whole list of people, not only the mentally ill. A person cannot be sent to a mental hospital before having been examined, and he cannot be examined until the authorities get hold of him and have a chance to observe him. My hon. Friend has picked out one category who, he suggests,


should be sent to mental hospitals anyway. I gave a whole list of a significant number of people with different conditions for whom it is essential to have this paragraph in the Bill. I repeat, the words "need not" give discretion to the magistrates.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Paragraph 3 of the schedule states:
The defendant need not be granted bail if the court is satisfied that the defendant should be kept in custody for his own protection".
Surely, that covers all the cases which have just been listed.

Dr. Summerskill: I cannot agree with that paragraph 3 covers paragraph 8. We are dealing in paragraph 8 with a whole category of people who are not covered by paragraph 3 for the reasons which I think I have clearly stated.
The intention behind Amendment No. 6 is to ensure that before remanding a convicted person in custody for inquiries or a report the magistrates will obtain evidence from a probation officer on whether a remand in custody is really necessary. I sympathise with the objective behind the amendment but I consider that it would not always be practicable. I think that this matter should be lefto to be covered by guidance in a circular rather than inserted as a mandatory requirement in the Bill. The practicability problem arises essentially from the inflexibility of an express statutory provision of this kind.
The amendment requires a court, before remanding in custody for inquiries, to hear evidence from the probation officer. Often this would be an excellent thing, in particular where the defendant was already known to the probation service and a probation officer was, therefore, able to help the court immeditely on what might best be done. However, this is not always possible. The defendant might be unknown to the probation service. Therefore, before a probation officer could give evidence he would have to interview the defendant and make inquiries. Increasingly, because of the pressures on the probation service, where a probation officer's evidence is not required ancillary workers attend court to keep the service in contact with what is going on, thus freeing probation officers

for other tasks. However, an ancillary would not be qualified to conduct an interview. Where this was necessary—in Berkshire, for example—a probation officer would have to be found and taken off other work. This could be avoided only by having a probation officer on standby, which would have serious resource implications for an extremely hard-pressed service. Moreover, the forming of an opinion solely on the basis of a short interview of that kind and on information which must necessarily be largely unverified is not regarded as good professional practice. Nor is the probation service the only possible source of information. If the question is whether facilities for out-patient examination at a hospital are available, a member of the court staff could check that. It might be that the police could also help with that kind of information.
I repeat that the Government agree entirely with the objective of the amendment, which I take to be that before the remanding in custody for inquiries or a report the court should seek all available information—in particular, any information that the probation service could supply—on whether there was any practicable alternative to a custodial remand.
If the amendment is withdrawn, we undertake to emphasise all this in a circular. The amendment would introduce too much inflexibility. Therefore, I ask my hon. Friend to withdraw the amendment on the basis of the assurance I have given.

Mr. Rees-Davies: Before the hon. Lady sits down, I wonder whether she would deal with one matter and whether perhaps the Chair would indicate whether in certain circumstances a manuscript amendment would be acceptable. The short point is that the hon. Lady means pargraph 8 to mean—to use an "Alice in Wonderland" term—that the defendant need not be granted bail if it appears to the court that it is necessary to keep the defendant in custody in order to complete the inquiries or make the report. That is simplicity itself. If the court is of the opinion that to complete the inquiries it is necessary to keep a person in custody, it is clear. The word "impracticable" in this context is wrong. I agree with my hon. and learned


Friend the Member for Runcorn (Mr Carlisle) on that matter.
If that is correct, and I believe it to be what the hon. Lady interpreted it to be, I wonder whether the Government might wish to move a manuscript amendment at this stage. It is very late in the day. I do not know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, whether, if the Government indicated such an intention, you would be of the opinion that it would be proper in the circumstances or whether you would take the view that it was too late. I submit that it would be proper, because it is the only opportunity that we have to deal with a matter which apparently escaped attention in Committee. If the hon. Lady felt that she could do that, it might resolve many differences on this paragraph.

Dr. Summerskill: On a point of explanation, if there is such a thing. I am advised that "impracticable" is almost as strong as "not possible". It means not possible, taking a reasonable view of what is humanly possible in the circumstances. The interpretation of the paragraph by the hon. and learned Member for Thanet, West (Mr. Rees-Davies) is reasonable. I could not agree to alter the words at this stage. I should like to retain the paragraph in the Bill. However, I shall not seek to oppose Amendment No. 4.

Mr. Edward Gardner: My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Thanet, West (Mr. Rees-Davies) suggested that, where a court thinks it is necessary to keep a defendant in custody in order to complete the inquiries or to make the report, the court ought to have that power. To try to withdraw that power and to restrict the court's discretion by amending paragraph 8, as is suggested, is to say that this House has no faith in the ability of a court to exercise judicial powers properly. The specific power must be given to the court in words more easily understood and less open to dispute than those used in paragraph 8, because there is no other power in the Bill which would allow the court to exercise discretion.
I join my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Thanet, West in urging on the Minister the need for redrafting, if possible, by one means or another the

words set out in paragraph 8. I also join and support the criticism so lucidly and effectively made by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Runcorn (Mr. Carlisle) about the word "impracticable". If the Minister feels that the Government have no alternative but to let through what we consider to be a somewhat deplorable example of parliamentary drafting that this House ought to be in a position to correct, I ask for an undertaking that when the Bill eventually becomes law, the Home Office will take steps to ensure that the courts are given guidance to make clear beyond peradventure what is intended by the word "impracticable".

7.15 p.m.

Mr. Kilroy-Silk: First, I should like to express my thanks and those of my hon. Friends to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for having so well and lucidly answered the points that were made in the debate and for having accepted Amendment No. 4, which is to leave out paragraph 7.
I am sorry that my hon. Friend is unable to give way to the same kind of pressure, which has come from both sides of the House, with regard to Amendment No. 5 for the deletion, or at least the redrafting, of paragraph 8. I do not think that an undertaking that on the passing of the Bill she will give instructions to the courts on the interpretation of paragraph 8 would be sufficient. Paragraph 8, if passed, will stand and it will be for the courts to determine the interpretation that they put upon it. As many hon. Members have said, the paragraph is unnecessary in principle and it is also extremely badly drafted.

Mr. William Wilson: As one who objected to the use of the word "impracticable", I think that it would be a very serious matter if the Home Secretary were to tell the courts what interpretation to put on different words. It is a fundamental principle that the courts must make up their own minds on such matters. The word "impracticable" is included in paragraph 8 and the Home Secretary wishes it to be there.

Mr. Kilroy-Silk: rose—

Dr. Summerskill: On this point, if I may intervene in my hon. Friend's speech, I agree with my hon. Friend the


Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Wilson) that the Government cannot tell the courts how to interpret a Bill, but they can give guidance. I assure the House that, in view of what has been said about the word "impracticable" and as it seems to disturb hon. Members, the Home Office will give guidance to the courts on the feeling of the House. I say yet again that this paragraph is discretionary. Magistrates are asked neither to grant nor to refuse bail. This paragraph simply states that a person
need not be granted bail".
It is entirely a matter for the magistrates to decide one way or the other.

Mr. Lawrence: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I think that it would be of assistance to the House if you would be kind enough to give us your guidance on the point raised by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Thanet, West (Mr. Rees-Davies), who asked whether it might be possible, even at this late stage, for the House to accept a manuscript amendment. If that were possible, it would be eminently desirable. There does not seem to be any sensible reason for the House producing a form of rubbish which will subsequently necessitate guidance being given to the courts. Surely it would be better to correct this wording today, which by common agreement is at fault, with a form of words acceptable to the House as gathered in the Chamber. I respectfully ask for your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker, on whether it is possible at this stage to submit a manuscript amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Myer Galpern): If the Minister in charge of the Bill wishes to prepare or hand in a manuscript amendment to paragraph 8 for my consideration, I shall consider it. If it is in order, I shall be prepared to accept it.

Mr. Kilroy-Silk: It seems that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State is unwilling to accept a manuscript amend-

ment. I am sorry that she has not been able to accept all the comments that have been made on the amendment to delete paragraph 8. It is not good enough to say that the House will not have a say in the matter but that the Secretary of State for the Home Department will draft recommendations for the courts on how they should interpret the law.

We are supposed to be legislating. It should not be necessary for the Home Secretary to tell us to be good boys and not to mess up what is already a mess. Surely he should not say that and then draft a nice letter to the courts to tell them what we really meant to say in the Bill when we were supposed to be writing it. For that reason, if for no other, I shall press the matter to a Division. I hope that I shall be supported by my hon. Friends and by Opposition Members.

Mrs. Audrey Wise: I ask my hon. Friend the Member for Ormskirk (Mr. Kilroy-Silk) to appeal to the Under-Secretary of State to accept the suggestion of a manuscript amendment. She acknowledged that the suggested wording is better although she would not accept it. That is an untenable position. I ask my hon. Friend to make one last appeal to the Under-Secretary of State to accept the amendment.

Mr. Kilroy-Silk: Will it help my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State if I remain on my feet? Are we likely to get any further if I do so? Will my hon. Friend, even at this late stage—no; I think we should put the matter to a Division.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment proposed: No. 5, in page 15, line 38, leave out paragraph 8.—[Mr. Kilroy-Silk.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 53, Noes 102.

Division No. 310]
AYES
[7.13 p.m.


Allaun, Frank
Colquhoun, Ms Maureen
Fox, Marcus


Atkinson, Norman
Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)
Hart, Rt Hon Judith


Beith, A. J.
Corbett, Robin
Heffer, Eric S.


Bidwell, Sydney
Cryer, Bob
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)


Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Kerr, Russell


Buchan, Norman
Edge, Geoff
Kilroy-Silk, Robert


Callaghan, Jim (Middlelon &amp; P)
Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)
Kinnock, Neil


Carmichael, Neil
Flannery, Martin
Litterick, Tom




Loyden, Eddle
Panhaligon, David
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)
Perry, Ernest
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Price, C. (Lewisham W)
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)


Madden, Max
Rodgers, George (Chorley)
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


Maynard, Miss Joan
Rooker, J. W.
Whitehead, Phillip


Mikardo, Ian
Roper, John
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)


Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)



Newens, Stanley
Skinner, Dennis
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Parry, Robert
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)
Miss Jo Richardson and


Pavitt, Laurie
Spearing, Nigel
Mr. Andrew Bennett.




NOES


Anderson, Donald
Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)
Price, William (Rugby)


Armstrong, Ernest
Graham, Ted
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Ashton, Joe
Grant, John (Islington C)
Robinson, Geoffrey


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)


Bates, All
Harper, Joseph
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Sims, Roger


Boyden, James (Bish Auck)
Hatton, Frank
Small, William


Brotherton, Michael
Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham, Sm H)
Stallard, A. W.


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Huckfield, Les
Strang, Gavin


Buchanan, Richard
Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


Cant, R. B.
Jessel, Toby
Tinn, James


Cartwright, John
Johnson, James (Hull West)
Tuck, Raphael


Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)
Jones, Barry (East Flint)
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Cohen, Stanley
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Kaufman, Gerald
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)
Lawrence, Ivan
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)


Dalyell, Tam
Lipton, Marcus
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Davidson, Arthur
MacFarquhar, Roderick
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Dempsey, James
MacKenzie, Gregor
Watkins, David


Dodsworth, Geoffrey
McNamara, Kevin
Watkinson, John


Dormand, J. D.
Marks, Kenneth
Weatherill, Bernard


Duffy, A. E. P.
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Wellbeloved, James


Dykes, Hugh
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
White, Frank R. (Bury)


Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)
Millan, Bruce
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


Ennals, David
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)
Williams, Alan (Swansea W)


Evans, loan (Aberdare)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Farr, John
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick
Winterton, Nicholas


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Ogden, Eric
Woodall, Alec


Ford, Ben
Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)
Young, David (Bolton E)


Forrester, John
Park, George



Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)
Parker, John
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Freud, Clement
Peart, Rt Hon Fred
Mr. David Stoddart and


Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)
Pendry, Tom
Mr. Donald Coleman.


Golding, John

Question accordingly negatived.

Mr. Kilroy-Silk: I beg to move Amendment No. 7, in page 17, line 2, leave out paragraph 2.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may take the following amendments:
No. 8, in page 17, line 10, at end insert:
'(c) the court is satisfied that it is probable that the defendant, if released on bail might interfere with witnesses or otherwise obstruct the course of justice, whether in relation to himself or any other person'.
No. 9, in page 17, line 11, leave out paragraph 3.

Mr. Kilroy-Silk: This amendment would mean that the prohibition on remanding in custody those charged with non-imprisonable offences would not be subject to an exception on the ground that the defendant had previously absconded and therefore, in the court's view, would

probably do so again. I emphasise that the amendment would not prevent the court from remanding someone in custody if he had absconded following a grant of bail in proceedings for the present offence—but it would prevent a court from remanding in custody someone charged with a non-imprisonable offence on the ground that he had absconded in proceedings for another offence at some time in the past.
The Advisory Council on the Penal System, in its report on young adult offenders in 1974 said, in paragraph 450:
We are strongly of the opinion that it should not be possible to detain a young adult in custody in such circumstances, and recommend that the law should be amended accordingly.
That recommendation is just as valid in regard to all defendants. The balance involved in bail decisions between, on the one hand, the protection of individual liberties and, on the other, the need to


protect the public, must be resolved in favour of individual civil liberties if society considers the offence to be so minor and trivial that in no circumstances can those who have been found guilty be sent to prison. It is difficult to see why an exception should be made to cover the likelihood of absconding if it is not made to cover, for example, the likelihood of further offences or of interfering with witnesses.
To single out the possibility of absconding in this way is to give it undue importance. Indeed, the Home Office Research Unit's Frances Simon and Mollie Weatheritt found, in their research into bail matters, that in the 1969 sample 6·7 per cent. of defendants bailed by magistrates failed to appear in court when required to do so. That is a relatively low figure. It is reasonable to assume that the incentive to abscond is greatly lessened when no custodial sentence is Possible for the offence, and that in such cases even lower rates of absconding can be expected. Therefore, it seems totally unnecessary to make an exception to the general presumption of bail.
Lord Hailsham, during the Bill's Committee stage in another place, said, on 6th April:
I think we are talking a great deal too much about absconding…If the offence with which a man is charged is one involving violence, or a very serious offence, it is that and not absconding, nowadays in modern society, of which you ought to be afraid. In the old days, in the 18th century, before there was a proper police system, when there were no means of tracing people, no social security, no means of finding out a man's employer and so on, I dare say that absconding was a very real difficulty…But nowadays the problem is to stop offences of an unacceptable kind being committed while the man is out on bail."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 6th April 1976; Vol. 369, cc. 1551–2.]
I commend those comments to the House. I hope that the Minister will be as open-minded and as charitable on this amendment as on previous amendments.
I turn to Amendment No. 9. That would mean that the Bill's general prohibition on remanding in custody those charged with non-imprisonable offences would not be subject to an exception on the ground that it is necessary to keep the defendant in custody for his own protection or welfare—an exception which is currently contained in the Bill. To

make such an exception would be contrary to the recommendations of the Advisory Council on the Penal System in its report, which recommended an absolute prohibition on remanding in custody those charged with non-imprisonable offences.
The situations which are envisaged in this exception presumably relate to defendants who are mentally unbalanced or have suicidal tendencies, since the likelihood of vengeance by private citizens—which can certainly occur in the case of serious crimes involving sex or violence—is unlikely to arise in the case of a minor offence not punishable by imprisonment.
I cannot see that an offence which does not carry the penalty of imprisonment can be one for which the defendant needs to be protected generally from the public, otherwise the offence presumably would be of such a serious nature that it would require imprisonment. It does not seem to cover that possibility.
In regard to mentally disturbed or unbalanced persons, the Bill runs completely counter to the recommendations in the report of the Butler Committee on Mentally Abnormal Offenders, which considered that minor offenders who are mentally disordered should be admitted to psychiatric units within the National Health Service, thereby averting the need to bring them within the penal system. Indeed, the report stated that
Their treatment needs could often be met by the National Health Service, and many of them could suitably be admitted directly into psychiatric hospitals, or into other psychiatric units, by the machinery of Section 136.
Section 136 is the section of the Mental Health Act 1959 that empowers a constable to remove to a place of safety a person found in a place to which the public have access, who appears to the constable to be suffering from mental disorder and to be in immediate need of care or control, or, if he thinks it necessary to do so, in the interests of that person or for the protection of other persons.
If, however, such an offender is charged with a non-imprisonable offence, appears before a court, and the court considers that a remand is necessary, a remand on bail to hospital as an in-patient is likely to be far more efficacious and appropriate, and far more beneficial, than would be a


remand in custody. Indeed, putting a mentally disordered, mentally unbalanced, person into prison seems to me to be the worst possible thing to do for him. It is rather anomalous that in this Bill we should be talking about the need for his protection and welfare. I cannot see that it is conducive to a person's welfare to be committed to a penal institution. The Butler Committee commented that
Remand to prison may be unhelpful, in view of the limited facilities of certain persons for dealing with the generality of psychiatric cases, and even undesirable, for example, where the offence in question is not itself punishable by imprisonment on conviction, or a prison sentence is unlikely to be imposed.
With regard to a defendant's suicidal tendencies, as the Minister well knows, suicides are not unknown—indeed, they are not uncommon—in prison. I should have thought that incarceration in some of our overcrowded prisons would be more conducive to suicidal tendencies than in any way a protection of those who have that propensity.
We are in a situation in which my hon. Friend may suggest that it may be necessary for their protection and welfare, and to deal with their suicidal tendencies, to remand such persons in custody, whereas the only possible likely result of that is to exacerbate and exaggerate such tendencies. I should have thought that remand on bail to a hospital as an inpatient would be far more appropriate in such circumstances. Remand on bail to a hostel may be appropriate in some cases—as, for example, with alcoholics—if the Secretary of State for Social Services were to provide a few more such centres, but certainly remand to a prison is clearly inappropriate.
The amendment would therefore delete what I believe is a very undesirable exception to the general proposition that it is inappropriate to remand any person in custody when the substantive offence of which that person has been charged in any way carries a penalty of non-imprisonment.
7.45 p.m.
I urge my hon. Friend to accept the amendment rather than to maintain a provision in the Bill which runs counter to the recommendations both of the Advisory Council on the Penal System, which I hope she holds in high regard,

the Younger Report, and the report of the Butler Committee on Mentally Abnormal Offenders, which she has already quoted in her defence in answer to an earlier amendment.
The amendment is supported by the National Association for the Care and Rehabilitation of Offenders, which is a very respectable and very forthright body in this field. It is also supported by the Howard League for Penal Reform and by the National Council for Civil Liberties.
I hope that my hon. Friend will remove these two exceptions, which, if they are left, will to a very large extent remain as a blight on what is otherwise a very useful and welcome Bill.

Mr. Carlisle: I speak briefly in support of Amendment No. 7. We are, I feel, involved in a slight nonsense here. We are dealing specifically with non-imprisonable offences, and I agree in principle with what the hon. Member for Ormskirk (Mr. Kilroy-Silk) said. In principle it seems wrong to detain a person in custody for offences which are alleged against him and for which, if he is convicted, he cannot be sent to prison as a penalty.
The hon. Gentleman has spoken lucidly. I wish to add only that the Bill makes it for the first time an offence to break bail or to abscond while on bail. There is, therefore, even less reason for the clause.
Let us suppose that a person is charged with a non-imprisonable offence and is granted bail. If he does not turn up, he commits the offence of absconding while on bail, so that he can be dealt with under the provisions of this Bill in any case. If I understand the Bill correctly, if a person fails to surrender to custody, he can then be arrested without warrant by a constable or arrested on a warrant by order of the court. He can then, as I understand it, be held in custody.
I concede that if a person is charged with a serious offence, there is a valid argument that there is reason to think that on this occasion he will not surrender, but the fact that on previous occasions a person may have failed to surrender to bail seems to me to be a bad argument in itself for justifying his detention in custody for an offence for which


in any event he cannot be sent to prison, and when he can be dealt with anyway, under the other provisions of the Bill.
Although I do not agree with what the hon. Gentleman said about Amendment No. 9, I support him strongly on Amendment No. 7.

Mr. Sims: I hope the Government will resist Amendments Nos. 7 and 9, because in my view the exceptions here are perfectly justified. If someone has previously failed to surrender to bail, the court should have the right to withhold bail, regardless of the nature of the offence.
It is perfectly true, as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Runcorn (Mr. Carlisle) says, that the Bill creates the offence of absconding from bail, so that if a person fails to turn up he can be charged with an offence—if he is caught, but it seems rather absurd to suggest that if a court has before it someone whose record suggests that it is likely that he will not turn up at the court for the hearing, nevertheless the court should still be obliged to release him on bail. On those grounds, I hope that paragraph 2 will remain in the Bill, and that the amendment will be resisted.
Similarly, with regard to Amendment No. 9, I should have thought, particularly in respect of children and young persons, that anyone with any experience of juvenile court work would realise that the appearance of a juvenile before a court on what may be a very trivial offence may be simply the tip of the iceberg. There may be a far more serious story behind it, and there may be circumstances that would more than justify that child's being kept in custody for its own welfare. Some relatively petty offence may well be the psychological cry for help which that child is making, and therefore it should be kept in some form of custody.
Amendment No. 8 has my name on it, and it raises a point that was not dealt with adequately in Committee. The critera for refusing bail are laid down in Part I of Schedule I in respect of imprisonable offences, but Part II of the same schedule lays down different criteria for non-imprisonable offences. The hon. Member for Ormskirk (Mr. Kilroy-Silk) wants to remove this altogether and say

that in no circumstances should bail be refused for non-imprisonable offences. I believe that the court should have the power to withhold bail not only in the circumstances laid down but also where there is a possibility that the defendant may interfere with witnesses.
This is one of the criteria laid down in Part I in regard to imprisonable offences, but it is not laid down in Part II. I think it is logical that it should be included in Part II as well. If a man appears before a court charged with an offence that is non-imprisonable, and if the police know from his record that there is a likelihood that he will interfere with witnesses, as the Bill stands they cannot oppose bail. Surely, in the interests of the public and of justice, the court should withhold bail in such circumstances.

Mr. Lawrence: Again I support the Government, which means that the case is probably lost, to the joy of the hon. Member for Ormskirk (Mr. Kilroy-Silk) and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Runcorn (Mr. Carlisle).
I am bound to say that a distinction has to be drawn between the process of sentence and the process of trial. A necessary prerequisite of any criminal proceedings is that the accused should appear to take his trial. It is no use making it easier for someone to run away or abscond and then to shrug one's shoulders and send the police out to arrest him for the criminal offence we have created in the Bill. It makes a nonsense of the whole process of criminal trial if we cannot ensure that an accused person appears to take his trial.
If the accused can reasonably satisfy the court that there is no question of his absconding he will be granted bail. That will occur in 99 cases out of 100, but what happens if there is before the court clear evidence adduced though the fact that on previous occasions the accused has, knowing the restraints upon him and that sureties will lose money in default, nevertheless flouted the requirement to appear? When that evidence is put before a magistrate or a judge, should not the court be able to say that this is a well-known absconder who should not be granted bail? Or will it be unable to do so? The police may seek and apprehend a man after a great deal of time and energy and


bring him to court charged with a non-imprisonable offence. If it is known that he is likely to abscond will the court still have to grant him bail and say that he may now go?
What sort of incentive is that for the forces of law and order to carry out their tasks with a reasonable degree of belief that what they are doing is beneficial to society? It is absolute nonsense for us to make it difficult in that small number of cases to bring a person to book.
It is all very well creating another offence in this Bill, but we must remember that the police have to catch the man. Their resources are not adequate to enable them to catch every Tom, Dick and Harry accused of a non-imprisonable, not too serious offence. They have not the resources to run around all over England in order to bring such a man before the court. I think it is nonsense to try to take away the power to refuse bail in these circumstances. One must presume that the courts will act with a fair degree of reasonableness and will take every care in such circumstances.
One factor which, of course, must be considered is the impact of hardship caused. If, in this sort of situation, a man is remanded in custody there will be enormous pressure on the legal system to try him speedily and most of the cases which come before the magistrates' courts and which are not imprisonable offences will be dealt with quickly. The period of time in which such a defendant is remanded in custody is likely to be short.
The hon. Member for Ormskirk cited Lord Hailsham as supporting his proposition, but if one refers to the debate in the House of Lords on this Bill one will see that he has misdirected the meaning. Lord Hailsham was referring to a completely different matter when he suggested that it is no longer sensible to use the old artifice of saying that a man should not have bail for a serious crime because he would be likely to abscond. Lord Hailsham was suggesting that there should be certain specific offences set out, and for persons charged with those offences bail should not be granted. His point was that the artifice should go. It had nothing to do with this sort of situation we are discussing.

In fact, Lord Hailsham would be astonished to hear the hon. Member for Ormskirk citing him in support of his proposition.
Therefore I would ask the House to reject Amendment No. 7. I am not sure that I see the necessity for two subparagraphs, (a) and (b), in any event, because if the court were satisfied that there would be a failure to surrender to bail it is obvious that the defendant probably would abscond. However, that is not a matter of great importance.
8.0 p.m.
As for Amendment No. 9, there are situations where it would be in the interest of the accused person for his own protection that he should be kept in custody. It is a very harsh action to keep anybody in custody, and it is sometimes cause for suspicion for a person to be kept in custody when the police say that it is for his own protection, but, as those of us who have practised for many years in the courts know, there are occasions when it is highly undesirable that persons should be allowed releases, particularly if they are young, and the matter should be disposed of with all speed.
I support the amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims). It is likely in some cases, even though imprisonment is not the end result, that people will not want to be convicted, perhaps for all sorts of reasons, but if there is the possibility in a particular case that the trial will be impeded if the defendant is not held in custody, it does not seem to me to make any difference whether the offence is an imprisonable one or not.

Mr. Bruce Douglas-Mann: What the hon. Member is suggesting would create great scope for giving imprisonment for non-imprisonable offences. His experience must tell him, as mine tells me, that there are a number of cases where the police feel that the sentence of the court will be inadequate, and, therefore, seek to oppose bail on that very ground. This happens to a certain extent already, and the incorporation of the amendment would leave enormous scope for serious abuse.

Mr. Lawrence: I would not in any way seek to negative the hon. Member's point. In the past there has been great


concern that objections to bail could be too readily used by police officers who were not too anxious to obey the spirit of the rules. I take the hon. Member's point, but we must weigh up the advantages and the disadvantages, and I believe that it is far more important that there should be trials—not because of my professional interest in the matter, I can assure hon. Members—than that there should be a mockery, either with people absconding because the courts are forced to give them bail, or with witnesses being interfered with. On that score, the police officer will have to give precise evidence to the court. If he said that he thought there would be interference, and there was no basis for his suspicion, the court would not act upon it. If there were firm evidence, the law would be an ass to ignore the situation if it would be likely to lead to an improper trial. I believe that the practicalities far outweigh the strong argument advanced by the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Mr. Douglas-Mann).
I do not think much of the Bill because I do not think that it will make a great deal of difference in practice. In practice, there will be no obligation to remand in custody for any of the reasons set out in paragraph 2 or in the amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst. Therefore, there would have to be a reasonably strong case to satisfy the magistrates or the judge that a a threat existed. That happens now, and it should continue, because it is far more important for the maintenance of justice that people should be tried than that they should be encouraged to interfere with witnesses and to impede the processes which will bring them either to conviction or acquittal.

Mr. Edward Lyons: I was in some doubt about paragraph 2 until I heard the hon. Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence). Now I am quite satisfied that my proper course is to support the amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Ormskirk (Mr. Kilroy-Silk) and the argument advanced by the hon. and learned Member for Runcorn (Mr. Carlisle). The prisons are already overcrowded, and we must try to keep people out of them. We are dealing with a clause that relates only to cases in which imprisonment cannot be the sentence of the court. That means that we are deal-

ing with a class of offence that is normaally of a less serious nature. If we have to put people into custody pending trial we should try to see that there is a limit on the time that such persons spend in custody. After all, ultimately they can only be fined, given a conditional discharge or given probation.
The courts are overcrowded. Policemen involved in a case may be on holiday. As a result, someone in this sort of situation, although charged with an offence which in itself cannot merit imprisonment, may find himself in custody for a considerable period. He may find himself in prison with people who may have a very bad effect upon him—they may be experienced criminals. The very fact that the charge is of a less serious kind could mean that the accused has not been much in trouble with the police in the past.

Mr. Edward Gardner: The paragraph in question clearly relates to people who have been in trouble before.

Mr. Lyons: I have dealt with that point already. I said not that they had not been in trouble before but that they had not been much in trouble before. A person could have been in trouble before for another non-imprisonable offence, but that would not make him a fit companion for other people in prison who have committed serious offences.

Mr. Lawrence: The hon. and learned Gentleman is saying that someone who has hardly been in trouble at all may be made to suffer in company with a number of hardened criminals. Does he not accept that it is highly unlikely that someone who has not been in very much trouble before would fall within any of the provisions of this part of the Bill, or of the amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims)? They must be people who have been in custody before, who have failed to appear for bail when having been in trouble before, or who are likely to interfere with witnesses. The picture that the hon. and learned Gentleman paints, of a poor person who has hardly been before the courts at all surely does not fit in with those requirements?

Mr. Lyons: I hesitate to argue with the hon. Member for Burton, but I do not agree with his interpretation. Such a


person does not have to have been in custody before, except in the sense of having surrendered to bail for the purpose of a previous hearing, which may have been for a non-custodial offence. That is the only pre-condition in paragraph 2.
I appreciate that these provisions are designed to remove inconvenience for the courts so that they are not kept waiting, but we must measure against that the fact that people who cannot be sent to prison for an offence may still have to spend a substantial time in prison.
Another powerful point is that in Clause 6 we are introducing, in effect, the offence of absconding, which can bring three months' imprisonment if the case is heard in a magistrates' court or 12 months' imprisonment on committal. That means that anyone who fails to attend court for a parking or other noncustodial offence puts himself into a different category in future. He can be charged with this new offence, which is punishable by imprisonment. If he is such a pest to the police, as was envisaged by the hon. Member for Burton, they will be delighted, because he will have removed himself from a fineable offence into the realms of an offence punishable by up to 12 months' imprisonment.
If a man has been burgling houses and the police have been able to catch him for only minor offences, he will be at their mercy on the new charge if he absconds.
This part of the Bill presumes that the person concerned is not very good at absconding. He has to have been caught in order for there to have been a previous occasion when he was granted bail and failed to surrender to custody. That is a significant factor.
We cannot know what the results of this new offence will be. People on minor charges who may have been disposed not to surrender to bail in the past, or not turn up at court for parking or careless driving charges, may now face three months' imprisonment, which will teach them a lesson. From now on, a person who does not turn up at court renders himself liable to the new charge.
Not all absconders disappear for ever. Often they have quarrelled with their wives and want to visit them on the day the court is sitting. They may decide to

keep the court waiting for a day or two. They are often found later, and frequently surrender themselves.
8.15 p.m.
We have now introduced the new offence, which can result in imprisonment, and consequently we should look at paragraph 2 with a different eye. I fall in line behind the amendment.
In paragraph 3 a distinction is made between the adult defendant and the child or young person. A child or young person need not be granted bail if his own welfare is at risk, but an adult, even if his welfare is at risk, apparently must be granted bail. I am thinking of a person who commits a non-custodial offence just before Christmas for the purpose of getting into prison over the Christmas holiday. That may surprise some hon. Members, but it does happen, and some people also try to get into prison during a particularly nasty period of the winter.
These people, because they are no longer children or young persons, cannot be put in prison for a night or two. It is sad that they are driven to these actions and curious that a defendant in such a situation cannot be put in prison for his own welfare.

Mr. Douglas-Mann: My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Lyons) made most of the points that I wished to make. I endorse what he said about paragraph 3. I am dissatisfied with the distinction between adults being remanded in custody for their own protection and children being remanded for their own welfare.
It is preferable to keep paragraph 3, but there are circumstances in which it is desirable that someone should be remanded in custody not only for his own protection but for his own welfare. I am thinking particularly of alcoholics and drug addicts, who badly need to be kept out of circulation for a while so that they have the opportunity to "dry out", even when they are not charged with an imprisonable offence.
I share much of the spirit with which my hon. Friend the Member for Ormskirk (Mr. Kilroy-Silk) approaches the Bill, but I cannot agree with him on Amendment No. 9.
I ask the Minister to consider whether it would not he more appropriate to make both provisions in paragraph 3 a matter of welfare rather than protection, because there can be cases, as I know from personal experience, in which it is desirable that defendants should not be granted bail. If instructed to apply for bail, a solicitor has little alternative but to do so. However, in those circumstances the courts would be better equipped if they had the slightly wider power that has been suggested.
As for paragraph 2, I entirely agree with the view that it is quite wrong to put someone in prison for a non-imprisonable offence even if he has previously absconded in relation to a quite different set of circumstances. If one has practised in the courts, one must know that there are occasions on which—this particularly applies at first instance in magistrates' courts—the zeal of the arresting officer is such that he is very reluctant to see the person whom he has arrested walking out of court. Even if he knows that the defendant will not get a custodial sentence in the end, he feels a great deal happier if the defendant is remanded in custody.
It is not necessarily a matter of great odium for the police. They may feel a degree of moral outrage at the offence and be infuriated that the magistrates' court will impose only a £25 fine. If they have grounds for opposing bail, it is not uncommon for them to do so even in many cases in which it is not appropriate.
Given the new imprisonable offence of absconding from bail, it is not desirable that we should extend the powers of the court to refuse bail in these circumstances by having paragraph 2 in the Bill, let alone adding to its provisions as suggested by the hon. Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims).
In my intervention during the speech of the hon. Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence), I made clear my objection that there is too much scope for abuse. On the face of it paragraph 2 sounds reasonable, but we must bear in mind that we are dealing with a non-imprisonable offence and that by leaving the paragraph in we shall be creating situations in which people are sent to prison for nonimprisonable offences on the basis of representations made to the court by a

party who feels aggrieved at what this House has done in the way of a maximum penalty.

Mr. Edward Lyons: Earlier I mentioned careless driving, but it has just occurred to me that careless driving is an imprisonable offence. Would it not be better if the Government gave some indication of these non-imprisonable offences? I think that most would be found to be offences under the food and drugs legislation, by people such as retailers, rather than offences by people who might be regarded as criminals in the regular sense of that word.

Mr. Douglas-Mann: Indeed. That is a very valid point. Even if we are dealing with someone who has been in prison and who has, on a serious charge, absconded from bail and who then comes up on a careless driving charge, or something less serious, and wishes to contest it, we should immediately have the situation envisaged by paragraph 2. It would be absurd to keep him in prison pending his trial in those circumstances.
I hope that the Government will reconsider the desirability of including paragraph 2. I certainly hope that my hon. Friends and Opposition Members will oppose the amendment, which would widen the scope for someone to be kept in jail unnecessarily pending his trial, because of opposition by the police.

Mr. Edward Gardner: I agree entirely with what was said by the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Mr. Douglas-Mann) about the undesirability of, and the strongest possible objection to, keeping someone in prison in lieu of prison as a punishment. Indeed, there was a very famous Lord Chief Justice of England who, in 1898, pointed out during a case dealing with bail that bail was not to be withheld as a punishment. I thoroughly endorse that view which, put forward as long ago as 1898, has been repeated during this debate.
However, what we are looking at is this paragraph 2, which deals with people who have had experience of the courts previously, who have abused the rights that the courts have allowed them previously and who, by their behaviour, now leave the court satisfied that, if they were allowed their freedom and were admitted to bail, they would repeat their previous


behaviour. I think that it is right that this House, as I have submitted previously, should be willing to have sufficient confidence in the courts to exercise a discretion in cases of this kind. It would be against the interests of justice and against the public interest if a court were to be deprived of its discretion to say "The person now before us, although likely to fail to appear at his trial, must now be allowed to leave the court, although we shall probably never see him again and great public expense will be involved in tracing him, because we have no power to order otherwise."
I am entirely in agreement with the views put forward about paragraph 3. This seems to be a valuable provision, and valuable for the reasons that were adduced by the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden. For those reasons, putting it as briefly as possible, we intend to support the Government in rejecting Amendments Nos. 7 and 9.
We ask the Government to look favourably at Amendment No. 8. It adds to the provisions under paragraph 2, which, I have already submitted, are valuable. If a court were to be satisfied that it would be probable that a defendant would interfere with the course of justice by getting in touch with witnesses or otherwise obstructing the course of justice, it would be right that the court should have a discretion of exercising a power of refusing that person admission to bail. For that reason I ask the Minister to accept this amendment as it has been drafted.

8.30 p.m.

Dr. Summerskill: I have listened again carefully to the views, not always unanimous, of legal opinion on these two paragraphs. I would first of all like to speak on Amendment No. 7, to delete paragraph 2, which provides that a defendant accused or convicted of an offence not punishable with imprisonment need not—I emphasise again the phrase "need not"—be granted bail. The paragraph simply gives magistrates power not to grant bail; they are given discretion in criminal proceedings when someone has failed to surrender and the court must be satisfied that in view of a previous failure he will probably fail to surrender again.
The provision is therefore aimed at defendants who have failed to surrender in previous criminal proceedings. Its purpose is to avoid leaving the court virtually powerless to deal with people who fail to appear. Even though the offence itself may not be grave, the defendant may cause serious inconvenience to witnesses and waste the time of the prosecutor and the court by failing to appear at the time and place specified.
Although the Government accepted that a person charged with an offence not punishable with imprisonment should rarely be remanded in custody, they considered that where there was a strong possibility, demonstrated by past conduct, of a defendant defying the court's authority, a remand in custody would be justified. But each case would be considered on its merits by the magistrates.
Some defendants—fortunately a minority—deliberately defy the court by constantly failing to turn up. Others—I turn now to paragraph 3—are visibly in some danger to themselves. They may be suicidal or mentally unbalanced, or, in the case of a child, in moral danger. The provisions in Part II of the Schedule were introduced to limit the grounds on which a court should be able to remand in custody a person charged with or convicted of an offence not punishable by imprisonment, because some sanction must be kept to deal with the case of people of the two types that I have just instanced—those who persistently fail to turn up and the second category, about whom my hon. Friend the Member for Ormskirk (Mr. Kilroy-Silk) put a reasonable case.
My hon. Friend's argument was that this provision for a custodial remand was not appropriate and should not be available when a defendant cannot be sent to prison for the offence charged. However, the Working Party on Bail Procedures in Magistrates' Courts took a different view, observing that remands in custody for the defendant's own safety are sometimes justified and that the power should be retained for such cases as the person with known suicidal tendencies or the person who is likely to be exposed to intimidation or violence if released on bail.
The validity of those arguments does not depend on the seriousness of the


offence charged, but I believe that the deletion of paragraph 3 would seriously weaken the courts' powers in a small but nevertheless important number of cases, possibly to the detriment of the people concerned. It would be hard to support the proposition that where the court concluded that a defendant was likely to be at serious risk, whether through his own actions or those of others, it would nevertheless have to release him on bail.
This paragraph gives the court discretion. It need not grant bail; on the other hand, it can grant bail. A safeguard against abuse of the powers to remand in custody is provided by the requirement imposed on courts to give their reasons for refusing bail. A copy of their reasons will be available to a defendant who wishes to challenge the decision in a higher court.

Mr. Kilroy-Silk: Dealing with paragraph 2, my hon. Friend talked about the offender who persistently absconded, and said that the court had to have some power. She even talked as if the defendant should be penalised for the inconvenience that the court had been put to. But surely that power exists now in the Bill. We have created the new offence of absconding. That will deal with the persistent absconder. Surely we do not need to imprison someone charged with a non-imprisonable offence in those circumstances. As my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Lyons) said, he is caught by the new offence.
My hon. Friend's second point related to mentally disturbed offenders, and she cited in her support the Home Office Working Party on Bail Procedures in Magistrates' Courts. But are not the Advisory Council on the Penal System and the Butler Committee on Mentally Abnormal Offenders far more distinguished committees and far more pertinent to this point than the working party? Both argued strenuously against remands on these grounds.

Dr. Summerskill: We are discussing whether the defendant need be granted bail. That is not covered by the new offence that my hon. Friend mentioned. We are talking about exceptions to the right to bail. Here are some situations in which the defendant need not be granted bail. I can understand that

there are genuine differences of view among the lawyers. I am not denying that some reputable organisations support my hon. Friend's amendments; I am simply stating the powerful arguments for retaining the paragraphs—arguments that have some support in the House. I concede that there are persuasive arguments for and against retaining the paragraphs.

Mr. Douglas-Mann: Will my hon. Friend say a word about the suggestion made my my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Lyons) and myself that there are circumstances in which it may be desirable to refuse bail, in the interests of the dependant's welfare as well as his protection?

Dr. Summerskill: I concede that "welfare" and "protection" could have opposite meanings or the same meaning. I do not know whether my hon. Friend is suggesting that we insert "welfare" instead of "protection". At present the paragraph has "protection" in the second line and "welfare" in the third line. I do not think that it is possible to alter the wording at this stage.

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: The hon. Lady must accept that the words must mean two different things, as they are in the same sentence. If they meant the same, the draftsman would not have used two different words.

Dr. Summerskill: I think that the hon. and learned Gentleman is right. "Protection" refers to adults, who can be put in prison, whereas a child or young person is put in the benevolent care of the local authority for his own welfare.
The effect of Amendment No. 8 would be that a court could remand in custody a person accused or convicted of an offence which was not punishable with imprisonment, if the court thought it probable that the defendant would interfere with witnesses or otherwise obstruct the course of justice if he were granted bail.
Part II of the schedule was inserted in Committee by Government amendments moved following representations made in another place that the circumstances in which it should be possible for a court to remand in custody a person who, if found guilty, could not be sentenced to imprisonment should be reduced


to an absolute minimum. Part II provides that these circumstances should be limited to the following situations: first, where, in view of a previous failure to answer to his bail, the court concludes that the defendant will probably fail to do so again if granted bail; secondly, where the court is satisfied that the defendant should be kept in custody for his own protcetion or welfare; thirdly, where he is already serving a sentence of imprisonment; and, fourthly, where he has been arrested earlier in the same proceedings for breach of his bail obligations.
The Government take the view that in the case of minor offences these are the only grounds on which a custodial remand might be justified. The probability of interfering with witnesses is not included, because it seems quite unnecessary. It it difficult realistically to imagine a scenario where a person charged with an offence for which he cannot be imprisoned would consider it worth while to interfere with witnesses in order to avoid a small financial penalty—and even more difficult for a court to reach the conclusion that it was probable that he would interfere with witnesses. If, however, he did so, he would be committing a separate criminal offence, for which he could be punished.
We do not consider that the amendment is necessary, and I hope on that

'52 &amp; 53 Vict. c. 63
The Interpretation Act 1889.
In section 27, the words from "and shall include" to the end'.

The amendment adds to the repeals schedule a small consequential repeal already provided for in substance by the amendment to Section 27 of the Interpretation Act 1889 contained in paragraph 5 of Schedule 2 of the Bill.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine): Consideration completed—

Mr. Sims: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I moved Amendment No. 8. I did not withdraw it, and I did not hear you put the Question to the House.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is under a misapprehension. The amendment was debated with Amend-

argument my hon. Friend will agree to withdraw it.

Amendment negatived.

Dr. Summerskill: I beg to move Amendment No. 10, in page 17, line 19, leave out 'subsection (1) or (2) of'.
Paragraph 5 of Part II of Schedule 1 is intended to provide that a person need not be granted bail if he has been released on bail at an earlier stage in the proceedings and has subsequently been arrested under the powers contained in Clause 7. As originally drafted, the Bill provided that an arrest could be under subsection (1) or subsection (2) of that clause. A further power of arrest, by warrant, now embodied in subsection (3) was added in Committee to cover the case in which a person absents himself from the court after having surrendered into the custody of the court. Accordingly, paragraph 5 needs to be amended to include references to all three subsections.

Amendment agreed to.

Schedule 3

REPEALS

Dr. Summerskill: I beg to move Amendment No. 12, in page 28, line 11, at end insert—

ment No. 7 but was not moved. It was not selected for a Division.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.—[Dr. Summerskill.]

8.43 p.m.

Mr. Edward Gardner: The Opposition welcomed the Bill when it first came before the House, although, perhaps, we did not show overweening zeal. The warmth of our welcome is not as great as it was because we believe that the Bill now seriously interferes with the discretion which was originally in a court to decide whether to refuse bail. That discretion has been seriously distorted by an amendment which the Government insisted on making when the Bill came from another place.
The presumption of innocence is the foundation of our system of criminal justice, and we accept that it is important, as the working party recommended, that a similar presumption should be created in relation to bail in favour of a defendant. We agree that it should not be for the defendant to show cause why he should be granted bail but that, rather, a court should consider whether there are good reasons why he should not be bailed.
The reasons for refusing are set out in Schedule 1. The three principal reasons are contained in paragraph 2(a), (b) and (c). We find it somewhat surprising that those reasons do not include what the working party recognised in the report as the first factor which a court ought to consider. The recommendations of the working party in this respect have been either ignored or overlooked by the Government in the Bill as we are now considering it.
The first factor which a court ought to take into account, when deciding whether to refuse the admission of a defendant to bail, according to the working party report, was the seriousness and nature of the offence. This, the working party said, should be a reason in its own right for refusing bail. One of the weaknesses of the Bill is its failure to make the seriousness and nature of the offence a reason in its own right for giving the court a discretion to refuse to admit a defendant to bail. Of course, by Schedule 1(10) the court is allowed to take into account, and shall have regard to
the nature and seriousness of the offence or default (and the probable method of dealing with the defendant for it)
but it does not make, as the working party report recommended the Government should make, the seriousness and the nature of the offence as a separate ground upon which bail could be refused.
Our more serious criticism, and it has been our criticism of the Bill ever since it came to this House, is that in its present form it undermines the discretion which has always been given to the courts, a discretion which the working party recognised as being highly desirable, and which the working party felt the court ought to be able to exercise. In effect, the working party said that it is highly undesirable that the discretion of the court

in deciding whether or not to refuse bail should be restricted more than necessary.
The first draft of the Bill—I am now referring to the very heart of the Bill, Schedule 1(2)—made it necessary for the court to be satisfied, as this Bill in its present form makes it necessary for the court to be satisfied
that it is probable that the defendant, if released on bail
would do one of three things:

"(a) fail to surrender to custody, or
(b) commit an offence while on bail, or
(c) interfere with witnesses or otherwise obstruct the course of justice, whether in relation to himself or any other person."
If those conditions are fulfilled, and the court is satisfied to that degree or standard of proof, then the court need not grant the defendant bail.
In fact, the word "probable", in our view, raises such a high standard of proof that the discretion that is left to the court is more illusory than real. Indeed, some have feared, and now fear again, that the use of the word "probable"—here I quote a view expressed by a member of the judiciary—
seems to have been designed to give the impression that the justices retain a discretion when in fact any such discretion is being removed. It is difficult to imagine a situation in which the justices are satisfied that it is probable that the accused would fail to surrender. I imagine"—
said the judge—
that a change at this point would be more difficult to obtain; it certainly seems to me to create a situation in which a refusal of bail would be almost impossible.
That is a view which has informed and kept alive a strong apprehension that if, as we now have it, the word "probable" is retained, with that high standard of proof, the public will be exposed to a risk from which they should be protected.
We accept, and we are anxious that it should be known that we accept, that the Bill is in other respects on the right lines, because we recognise the importance of avoiding the injustice of keeping in prison someone who has been charged with an offence but has not been convicted of that offence. We recognise also, however, and we emphasise what the working party emphasised in its report, that it is equally important that the public should be protected and feel that


the Government are giving them full and proper protection.
Our concern in relation to the Bill is not so much about whether we can empty our prisons or whether we ought to build more. Our concern is to ensure that the full and uninterrupted liberty of a person who has been charged but not convicted should be compatible with the public interest, and that persons should not be let loose at large upon the public if, by so being at large, they put into jeopardy the public interest, which, in our view, demands protection from dangerous, violent and vicious criminals.
We feel strongly that there is here a defect which the Government have brought into the Bill of their own volition. They have been determined to do it. The other place voted on this issue and defeated the Government, putting into the Bill, in place of the word "probable", the words "unacceptable risk", which imported a lower standard of proof. On Second Reading I said that I was not satisfied even with those words, but at least they are preferable in every way to the word "probable".
It is worth remembering that, in displacing the words "unacceptable risk" and substituting "probable", the Government have acted against the views, and the persuasive arguments which supported them, of two former Lord Chancellors, of a Lord of Appeal in Ordinary and of a Liberal peer who is himself a distinguished lawyer.
We feel that there are dangers in this Bill because of what the Government have now done to it. Although we cannot in any way hope to deal with those dangers or remedy this defect, at least this is the moment to declare our fear that the danger is there. We hope that the result will not be appreciable or will bring any serious peril to the public. We think that the danger is there and that it can be avoided. It is a danger that makes it necessary for the Opposition to give a qualified welcome to the Bill.

8.56 p.m.

Mr. Douglas-Mann: We on the Government side of the House, share the objectives of the hon. and learned Member for South Fylde (Mr. Gardner) but we consider that those objectives are more

satisfactorily achieved by the words in the Bill than the words that have emerged from the other place. I will not detain the House on the broader issues of the Bill. I was not on the Committee on the Bill.
I should like to raise one matter which was debated in Committee and which, I fear, because the Government are not able to accept it, remains a serious deficiency in the Bill. I refer to the inadequacy of legal representation at the time of application for bail, particularly if the application has to be pursued to the judge in chambers or, preferably, if a right to make the application to a Crown court were substituted for the existing provisions of the application to a judge in chambers.
I have had correspondence with the Minister of State, Home Office, about this. I received from him today a letter in which he explains why the Government do not feel that it is practicable at the moment to provide legal aid for an application for bail to a judge in chambers—or, rather, an appeal against refusal of bail—or to change the system to making an application to the Crown court.
There are 8,000 applications made each year. The procedure is that the applications are, for the most part, carried out by the Official Solicitor. The defendant is in custody. The Official Solicitor makes an application on his behalf. Only a tiny proportion of these applications made to the Official Solicitor are successful. Any lawyer with experience of this kind will know that a very substantial proportion of applications made by private legal representation are successful. It may be that there are different circumstances or cases where defendants are able to obtain someone to make the applications for bail for them and that those are the more meritorious cases. My experience—I believe it is shared by many lawyers—is that an application made to a judge in chambers by a private lawyer, is given serious consideration and that a significantly higher proportion of such applications are successful.
I do not have the particulars. The Law Society carried out a study of the number of cases of applications made to the judge in chambers. I think that only 10 per cent. of applications dealt with by the Official Solicitor were successful That is a very low percentage.
One of the reasons advanced by my hon. Friends for rejecting the proposal that legal aid should be granted was the cost. I would remind my hon. Friends of the cost of keeping someone in custody. The cost involved in providing legal representation to assert a right of liberty, if it is to be taken into account, must be weighed against the cost of keeping somebody in prison unnecessarily. It is a substantial cost which ought not to be incurred when it can be avoided.
That argument—that there are 8,000 cases a year at present—takes no account of the effect of the Bill. Many of the unnecessary refusals of bail applications will be caught by the Bill. Far from there being 8,000 cases a year in future, I trust that the numbers who find it necessary to apply to the judge in chambers will be fewer. The fact that they will be fewer does not mean that some will not have substantial merit.
It is important that we assess the cost realistically. If we do, we shall find that the balance of the cost to public funds of providing legal aid to enable people to make applications for bail either to the judge in chambers or, as I believe would be preferable, to the Crown court, will be relatively small. In any case, even if the cost were moderately substantial, I suggest that, on the issue of liberty, it is important that we make funds available to ensure that people are not kept in prison unnecessarily.
Although the Bill has deficiencies in that respect, I am on the whole extremely glad that it has been presented. I congratulate my right hon. and hon. Friends on their persistence in getting it through and in resisting the blandishments of their Lordships and of the Opposition to revert to "unacceptable risk".

9.1 p.m.

Mr. Sims: On Second Reading I expressed the view that the Bill was unnecessary because it put into statutory form the normal practice in the courts. I have since altered my view, chiefly on the grounds indicated by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Fylde (Mr. Gardner) regarding the manner in which the Bill has been altered in Committee.
It is clear that the deliberate aim of the Bill is to make it more difficult for

the court to withhold bail. I fear that that may prove to be a retrograde step. There is little evidence that bail is unreasonably refused. Indeed, there is some evidence that it is granted too freely.
There was a case in the Midlands of three boys involved in car stealing. They appeared before the court and were bailed. They went off stealing cars again, with results which, alas, were fatal to themselves. There is no doubt about the views of the parents on how the court should have exercised its powers in that case.
A recent case reported in the Press concerned a youth who beat an old woman to death after being allowed out on bail by two courts, despite police objections. Therefore, there are times when, if anything, the courts err on the side of liberality in granting bail.
The central point of the Bill is that hitherto magistrates' courts—it must be remembered that in most cases it is the magistrates' courts that grant or withhold bail—have been able to use their common sense and discretion in deciding whether to allow bail. They are now to be restricted literally to the letter of the law. As my hon. and learned Friend said, it is yet another curb on the discretion of the courts, and it is one which I deplore.
I do not want to detain the House by going into great detail and argument on those matters; they are self-evident. I think that I have made my feelings clear. But there is another aspect to which I feel I should refer. The Bill should not be implemented until the Home Office is satisfied that it has all the facilities to put it into practice. The essential operation of the Bill will be the manner in which bail information forms are completed and presented to the courts.
I mentioned this point in Committee and was assured that it would be about six months before the Bill was implemented, by which time this matter would have been satisfactorily cleared up. I hope that that proves to be the case. However, when I asked the Minister of State how many courts in England and Wales operate a bail information scheme, and what information he had on who normally completes the forms, I received the following answer:
We do not have this information at present. It is our intention to ask courts later in the year to what extent they are operating such


schemes."—[Official Report, 20th July 1976; Vol. 915, c. 423.]
The Bill cannot operate unless the bail information form scheme is in operation in every court. The bench will have to have the information that is required by the forms before it can take the decision that it is required to take under the Bill. It is vital that the Home Office reaches agreement with those involved on who shall complete the forms. I am sure that the hon. Lady is aware of the differences of opinion between probation officers, court clerks and police officers, for example, as to whose duty it is to complete them.
I urge upon the hon. Lady that her Department does not bring this measure into effect, even if that means deferring implementation beyond the date originally indicated in Committee, until the whole question of who should complete the information forms has been satisfactorily settled, so that the scheme can be operated smoothly from the word go.

9.7 p.m.

Mr. Kilroy-Silk: I find it somewhat extraordinary that the hon. and learned Member for South Fylde (Mr. Gardner) should talk of his fears and trepidations about the Bill on Third Reading. He had ample time in Committee to table amendments to the Government amendments. If his fears were as strong in Committee as he has made them appear tonight, it seems rather strange that they did not manifest themselves in one Opposition-forced Division.

Mr. Edward Gardner: In fact, I tabled an amendment dealing with the word "probable". I tabled an amendment on the words that the Government wished to remove, namely, "unacceptable risk". My amendment sought to retain those words. There was a Division on that amendment.

Mr. Kilroy-Silk: Tonight the hon. and learned Gentleman has been speaking not only about the unacceptable or probable risk controversy but about other matters in the Bill. Amendments were not tabled in Committee to deal with those matters. The Opposition forced no Divisions on those matters. However, in this relatively non-partisan atmosphere it ill becomes me to enjoin an attempt to arouse controversy.
This is an appropriate Bill at a time when the prison population is at an all-time high. It is about 100 short of what the Home Secretary considered would be an unacceptable and intolerable level slightly over a year ago. That has caused widespread overcrowding in our prisons, two-thirds of our prisoners being two or three to a cell. For that reason if for no other—I accept that it is not the primary reason—the Bill is welcome. It is welcome if it leads only to some alleviation of the overcrowding and to fewer people being remanded.
I welcome the Bill wholeheartedly, except for its creation of the new offence of absconding. I regret that it was found necessary to put that into the Bill in the first place. I regret that it was felt necessary today to leave in the Bill the two provisions that I attempted to delete. However, I do not think that the Bill is one that needs a qualified welcome; It is one that should be welcomed enthusiastically. It will be welcomed for whatever it does to reduce the number of otherwise unnecessary incarcerations.
I believe, or hope, that it will have a profound effect on sentencing policy. I hope that it will lead not only to fewer people being put into prison for unnecessary reasons and for unnecessary periods but to far fewer of those currently found not guilty, those who have cases against them not proceeded with, or those who are given non-custodial sentences, finding themselves refused bail.
Large numbers of schoolchildren and adults are imprisoned for relatively long periods of time, only subsequently to be found not guilty or be given non-custodial sentences or to find that their cases are dropped. That state of affairs is unnecessary. If the Bill becomes law, that situation will be mitigated to some extent and the exercise will have been worthwhile. It is a pity that the Bill did not go further and provide some element of compensation for those who are wrongly imprisoned. Many adults and schoolchildren can spend up to three months in prison before they are subsequently found to be innocent or are given a non-custodial sentence.
In view of the size of the prison population, the Bill is welcome. We are coming out of a hot summer, with all the problems of overcrowded prisons and cells,


and the situation will be exacerbated by public expenditure cuts. Prison warders have worked to rule and prisoners have been locked in their cells for longer periods than are necessary. Again, therefore, if the Bill has some mitigating effect in that respect it will have been worth while.
We have been dealing in the debates with the fine balance that exists between, on the one hand, the preservation and enhancement of civil liberties and, on the other hand, the necessary protection demanded by society from those of its citizens who are violent and reckless. The Bill seeks to tread that line finely and judiciously.
I wish to congratulate the Minister of State, who is not now present, on taking the Bill through its Second Reading with such courtesy and lucidity. I also wish to thank the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, who acted with great charity in accepting one of my amendments. Perhaps I may say that in one sense the hon. Lady has been a little obdurate—if that is not too strong a word—in not rushing with open arms to accept other amendments, but at all times she has responded with courtesy to points made in our deliberations. I give an enthusiastic welcome to the Bill and look forward to seeing it on the statute book.

9.13 p.m.

Mr. Lawrence: I began by being no great friend of this Bill, and I end in the same position. Fourteen years of making almost weekly applications for bail on behalf of countless clients has not led me to see much sense in the Bill. The little positive good that it will do in terms of civil liberties could easily have been carried out through administrative action. The creation of a new offence is a shot in the dark, and the Bill's provisions may even do some positive harm.
I wish to stress two points. What is wrong with our penal system is not so much that too many people are unjustly remanded in custody—although if any people fall into that category that, of course, is bad—but that the Government, and perhaps successive Governments, have totally failed to provide an adequate penal system with adequate prison accommodation for those who are properly sentenced. That is the direction to which

the Government must now turn their attention.
Secondly, I believe that people outside the House may regard the Bill as a measure aimed at bringing about a substantial change in the operation of the law. They may take the view that it liberalises the situation or that it further weakens the forces of law and order—and in some respects it may possibly do so in limiting the discretion of the judiciary—but broadly those beliefs would, I think, be wrong. The process of the courts, granting and refusing bail, will continue very much as it has always done in recent times, through the exercise of broad principles of common sense and good will by all parties to the operation of our legal system.
The phrase "need not" appears time and again in this legislation. That gives a sufficiently wide discretion in most situations for the judiciary, whether magistrates or Crown Court judges, to use their discretion and apply common sense.
The courts and those who serve the legal system will continue to observe the tenet of common sense and the need to serve society. In my view, nothing in the Bill will affect that. Seldom will it be that persons granted bail under the Bill would not have been granted it if there had not been this Bill. Seldom will it be that persons who would not have been granted bail will be granted bail after the passage of the Bill.
With respect to the hon. Member for Ormskirk (Mr. Kilroy-Silk), who has now left the Chamber, he is engaging in wishful thinking if he really believes that the Bill will make very much difference. If I am right, the Bill will turn out largely to be a waste of our time. It will be just another example of the Government churning out legislation for the sake of it. The amount of energy which has been involved would have been far better exerted in making the Children and Young Persons Act work and in taking some notice of the report of the Select Committee on the Children and Young Persons Act.
Perhaps even that ought to pale into insignificance beside the primary challenge which faces the Government and all of us in this place—that is, to stop this country from sinking down the drain.


Wasting our time on pieces of legislation such as this does no credit to this Government or to the good name of Parliament.

9.17 p.m.

Dr. Summerskill: I believe that the Bill will have a significant impact on the frequency with which bail is granted. This must be welcome for the person concerned, who might otherwise unnecessarily have had to spend time in prison, and for our hard-pressed prison service, which would have had to accommodate him.
In spite of the remarks of the hon. Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence), there has been general approval from all sides for the fundamental aims of the Bill. The differences of view have been concerned with the way in which we should achieve the correct balance between, on the one hand, a desire to ensure that as few people as possible should be remanded in custody and, on the other hand, the recognition that there will always be circumstances in which someone must be remanded in custody.
We believe that we have the right balance, but there will always be room for argument at the margins. These differences should not be allowed to obscure two fundamental and significant changes in the law and practice relating to bail introduced by the Bill.
The first is the provision in Clause 4, that a person accused of an offence shall be granted bail unless he falls within one or other of the exceptions set out in Schedule 1. The second is the provision in Clause 5, that where a court withholds bail in criminal proceedings or imposes conditions on the grant of bail, it shall give reasons for its action.
I should like to mention a number of constructive changes that were made in Committee. The Bill now covers the position of defendants who are remanded after conviction, but before sentence, for further inquiries to be made. Changes were also made further limiting the power to remand in custody a person accused of an offence not punishable with imprisonment.
Finally, looking ahead, I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Mr. Douglas-Mann) that the Government have undertaken to consider further proposals relating to applications for bail to a judge in chambers. Discussions between the Law Society and officials of the Home Office and the Lord Chancellor's office have been arranged for September. There are important questions to discuss about the call on resources, in manpower and money terms, as well as the question of how the law might be adapted. These discussions will be held without commitment but I assure hon. Members that the matter will be pursued actively.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, with amendments.

RATING (CHARITY SHOPS) BILL [Lords]

Not amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 56 (Third Reading), and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, without amendment.

POLICE BILL

Lords Amendments considered.

Clause 6

COMPLAINTS REGULATIONS

Lords Amendment: No. 1, in page 6, line 37, leave out "or 4(5)" and insert ", 4(5) or 5(2) and (3)"

9.22 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Dr. Shirley Summer-skill): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
This is an amendment to Clause 6(1)(h), which empowers the Secretary of State to make regulations for enabling chief officers to delegate any function conferred on them under Section 49 of the Police Act 1964 or under specified clauses of the Bill or under regulations made under Clause 6. Although these various functions are conferred on the chief officer it is often a subordinate who, in practice, carries, or will carry, them out.
Hon. Members will recall that Clause 5(2) and (3), added to the Bill at Report stage in this House, place an additional function on the chief officer, namely, to deal with any request from the board to send on to the Director of Public Prosecutions information that may be relevant to criminal proceedings against a police officer complained of but which the board believe has not been sent to the Director. As this function, too, is likely to be delegated, a reference to Clause 5(2) and (3) should be added to the list of provisions already given in Clause 6(1)(h), so that appropriate regulations may be made. This is largely a technical consequential amendment.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 7

CONSTABULARIES MAINTAINED BY AUTHORITIES OTHER THAN POLICE AUTHORITIES

Lords Amendment: No. 2, in page 7, line 22, leave out "twelve" and insert "six".

Dr. Summerskill: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
Hon. Members will recall that in response to pressure from all sides of the House we put down an amendment at Report stage, which now appears as subsection (2) of Clause 7, whose effect was that if within a period of 12 months the board has not made arrangements with an authority, other than a police authority, for the new scheme to be applied to any body of constables maintained by that authority, the Secretary of State had power to make such arrangements by order.
In the course of debate on the amendment on Report, we undertook to accept a further amendment, put down by the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths), the effect of which would have been to reduce from 12 to six months the period after which the default power could be exercised. Although this other amendment was not moved we nevertheless wished to honour the undertaking that we had given, and that is what this amendment does.

Mr. Michael Alison: We welcome the Government's attitude to this amendment. The fact that it has now been accepted goes some way towards narrowing the differential between the regular police forces, such as the Metropolitan Police and other forces maintained by police authorities, and other police bodies.
I draw the Under-Secretary's attention to the fact that this is an increasingly sensitive area. The relationship between the two kinds of police forces is not only sensitive but is peculiarly relevant at the present time, because the Government have got themselves into a muddle over police pay. Had this amendment not been accepted a serious situation would have been made even worse.
I hope that the hon. Lady appreciates the unsatisfactory way in which the Government are handling the police pay claim and that she will take this opportunity to say something reassuring to the police about this matter, especially at a time when this Bill, relating to complaints against the police, has caused considerable misgivings.
The police case has been particularly insensitively handled when one considers the way in which the Government handled another extremely sensitive


area—that of pay and pensions of Members of Parliament. The House will recall that when we debated the Parliamentary and Other Pensions and Salaries Bill the Government agreed that MPs' salaries and pensions arrangements should be geared to an agreement that had been reached, though not published, at least two months before the Government produced their White Paper on pay and prices. In the case of the police the agreement was reached with the service in general before the September deadline on the pay and prices policy of £6 a week, and the Government have refused to allow the police to negotiate from September on the basis of that first phase of the policy.
This issue is extremely important in the context of the amendment, because the amendment brings out the sharp difference between the regular police service and the other kinds of police concerned. The regular police feel that they have had an extremely shabby deal in the way in which this matter has been handled. I hope that the Under-Secretary will take the opportunity to make it quite clear that the Government have not closed their minds to the possibility that negotiations will be opened on the basis of the £6-per-week first phase of the policy, since the previous pay policy was concluded in June 1975 and phase 1 of the new policy did not start until September. The hon. Lady has recognised the relevance of this important provision, and I hope that we shall have a comment from her about it in order to reassure the police in the context of a Bill that is deeply demoralising to them.

Mr. A. J. Beith: I sympathise with the expressions of opinion by the hon. Member for Barkston Ash (Mr. Alison) about the position of the police, and I admire his ingenuity in managing to relate it to the amendment. I wish, however, to confine my remarks to saying how much I appreciate the Government's attitude, in the light of the very strong feeling expressed in Committee, to the relationship in the complaints procedure between police forces maintained by local authorities and those maintained by various kinds of employers.
I am pleased to see the timetable I had originally envisaged finding its way, through the amendment, back into the Bill. There was a willingness in the other place to take the same line that we took in Committee and on the Floor of the House, and I hope that this has convinced the Under-Secretary that she must make the fullest use of these default powers. It would be a great mistake if the Home Office were to feel that it could let any police force slip out of the net. It is a default power which the Home Office is not obliged to use.
Members of the forces affected are, certainly in every case known to me, determined to be put on the same footing as local authority police forces. They want to be on the same basis from the point of view of pay, although they have usually had to argue that case from an adverse position and not from the favourable position that has emerged recently. They want to be on the same footing in relation to discipline, complaints, and everything else. They do not want to be treated as second-class police forces. They want to be subjected to the same rigours and to meet the same standards as regular police forces, and I am glad to see a Government commitment to that principle.

9.30 p.m.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: I am glad that the hon. Membert for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) is pleased. So am I. He has very properly said that the other police forces are anxious to be treated the same as regular police forces. But they have not been. The other police forces have all received the £6 increase under phase 1 of the pay policy. The regular police have not. The one thing which therefore distinguishes the regular police, with all their responsibilities, from all the other police forces, who the hon. Gentleman says are now to be made to conform with the regular police, is that the regular police have been excluded from the £6 while all the other police forces of which we are now speaking have been included. This is the heart of the matter.
The object of the amendment is to bring non-local authority police forces into conformity with the regular police, but a distinction will remain in the crucial area of pay. I find it impossible to understand why the Government should


do this. The Government have handled this pay matter with a degree of insensitivity that is almost unbelievable. At a time when law and order are at risk and crime is increasing, we cannot afford discontent over pay or the risk of disaffection in the regular police service.
There are voices within the police service talking of militant action. I am happy to say that this is not the view of the Police Federation, with which I have a connection. But it should not go unnoticed by the Government that there are those within the service who are so unhappy about the insensitive way in which the Government have handled the pay question that they are talking of industrial action. No Government should act in such a way that this might occur.

Mr. Speaker: Order. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I do not need any moral support. The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) will realise that we are on a narrow amendment relating to a time period of 12 or six months. This is not a Second or Third Reading debate.

Mr. Griffiths: I am obliged to you, Mr. Speaker. I was just about to say how pleased I am that my amendment on this point in Committee is now being put into the Bill as a result of its consideration in another place. Consequently I am conscious of the narrowness of the amendment. It was the point that I raised in Committee.
The drive of the amendment is to bring the regular police services and other police forces into conformity within a period of six months. It would be wrong if within that period the Government did not achieve conformity in pay as well as in complaints procedure. I hope that the Minister will not say that during that six months it will be impossible to bring the police into conformity with other groups in respect of £6 a week increase.
The last police settlement was agreed in June last year. It was not implemented until later in the year. In our debate on parliamentary pensions and pay increases, however, the Minister based his case for hon. Member receiving increases on the fact that the report from the Top Salaries Review Body had been received on 13th June. That is precisely analagous to the phase 1

position of the police—but they are being left out. It must be right to conform salaries as well as arrangements for complaints between the regular police and other forces within the six months mentioned in the amendment.
I wish to make two other points. First, the Under-Secretary will recall that in Committee she said that it might not be easy to bring all the other forces into line within six months because there were so many of them. After a note had been passed to her by her officials, she said that there might be as many as 40 or 50 and that there were even some private police forces of which the Government themselves were not wholly aware. I found that a very curious statement, but nevertheless I accepted it.
I hope that tonight the hon. Lady will tell us whether her researches have now revealed how many of these other police forces exist, exactly who employs them and how many people are involved, so that we shall know who precisely will be conforming with the police service over complaints procedure within the next six months. This is important. I believe that there should be a schedule setting out precisely which are those other forces.
Finally, there is the simple point that it would be wholly invidious if two police officers dealing with the same incident, perhaps on British Rail for example, were to find themselves in a situation in which the one who was employed by British Rail was not subjected to the complaints procedure whereas the regular officer at his side was subjected to it. The amendment will deal with that problem. I am glad about that. However, it is crucial that we should know which are the other private police forces to which the amendment will apply.

Dr. Sumnerskill: I am gratified to note the unqualified welcome that Opposition Members have given to the amendment. I did not really see the relevance to the amendment of the remarks about the pay and pensions of Members of Parliament or, indeed, police pay. However, with regard to the comments of the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths), in view of his request to know the names, if possible, of every individual police force I shall certainly write to him and


give him, as far as possible, a comprehensive list. I pointed out in Committee. however, that there are many organisations—some of which I named—that have police forces which may be on only a temporary basis and which may exist for some weeks or months and then be disbanded. It is not always possible to keep an exact record of which forces are in operation at a particular time. However, I shall look into this matter and let the hon. Gentleman have a list that is as comprehensive as possible.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 11

DISCIPLINARY CHARGES IN CRIMINAL CASES

Lords Amendment: No. 3, in page 10, line 21, leave out subsection (1) and insert—

"(1) Where a member of a police force has been acquitted or convicted of a criminal offence he shall not be liable to be charged with any offence against discipline which is in substance the same as the offence of which he has been acquitted or convicted."

Dr. Summerskill: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
Clause 11(1) is designed to guard against a particular form of double jeopardy, namely, that an officer having been tried for a criminal offence should not then be charged with a disciplinary offence which is in substance the same as the criminal offence. During the Committee stage in another place objections were raised to the present form of words, and the purpose of the amendment is to meet those objections while maintaining the original purpose of the subsection.
Hon. Members will recall that there was much discussion of this matter in Committee. We have provided accordingly, in Clause 3(8), for the board to have regard to current guidance on the matter, and we have included in the Bill Clause 11, which guards against the risk of an officer's being charged or punished twice for the same offence, first under the criminal law and then under the police discipline code.
This principle is not in question, but in Committee in another place the wording of Clause 11(1), by which we had

sought to give expression to that principle, raised certain doubts. There was concern that Clause 11(1) perhaps went too far in guarding against double jeopardy by preventing a chief officer, in a case which had involved criminal proceedings against the officer concerned, from properly taking action in respect of the disciplinary aspects of the same case, although without prejudice to the principle of no double jeopardy.
We had no intention of departing from accepted practice in such cases, and we therefore put down this amended form of words to remove any doubts which had arisen. The main purpose of the subsection remains the same—namely, to avoid double jeopardy—but the amendment does not prevent disciplinary action being taken in respect of a disciplinary offence which is not the same in substance as the criminal offence. While, therefore, an officer may have been acquitted of breaking and entering, there is nothing to prevent the appropriate disciplinary charge being brought if there is undisputed evidence that he was off his beat without reasonable cause at the material time.
Another difficulty in the original wording of Clause 11(1) was that it opened the door to possible litigation in the field of autrefois, a complex and difficult part of the common law. The revised form of words is designed to state the principle of no double jeopardy, on which there is no disagreement, in such a way as to avoid praying in aid the doctrine of autrefois. That is the reason for the amendment, with which I hope that the House will agree.

Mr. Alison: We are grateful to the Minister for spelling out the implications of the amendment and its relationship to the original drafting. We are glad that it does not effectively diminish the impact of all that the Government agreed to do in providing this double jeopardy safeguard.
The hon. Lady referred to the guidance factor in Clause 3(8). Could she give us one further reassurance on the double jeopardy question? She will recall that one of the lacunae which the Opposition still felt that the Government had left on the double jeopardy front was in relation not only to cases which the Director of Public Prosecutions had taken


to trial and which had resulted either in an acquittal or in a conviction, which is what the two texts here deal with. We were also anxious about cases in which the Director decided on evidential grounds not to prosecute, so that there could be neither an acquittal nor a conviction.
The Government's own Press statement in connection with the original Bill said:
As now, disciplinary proceedings will not be brought on charges which are in substance the same as possible criminal charges on which the Director has decided on evidential grounds not to prosecute".
Can the Minister confirm that, in the guidance which is given, the principle of extending the double jeopardy protection to cases in which no case has been brought because of lack of evidence will not be overturned by the regime of the new legislation and that this existing protection will be observed under the regular guidance which already exists and will be applied under the Bill?

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: I have three small questions, while welcoming the amendment wholeheartedly. First, can the Minister say precisely what is meant in the third line of the new subsection by the term "in substance"? I realise that it is a term of art which has been long in use in Police Regulations, but can the hon. Lady say fairly precisely that in the Regulations the term will mean that, where a police officer has been prosecuted or convicted or where the Director has considered the matter and has determined not to prosecute, no alleged offence will cause the officer to be taken into discipline? The term "in substance" is familiar, but the Minister should say precisely what the Government have in mind.
9.45 p.m.
I am not sufficient of a lawyer to know whether the hon. Lady's words about the problem of autrefois were accurate, but it would be for the convenience and interest of the House to know exactly what she is guarding against when she says that she is guarding against risks of a policeman being caught by that doctrine.
The amendment, which expresses the spirit of what we all wanted to achieve in Committee, does not deal with the problem of protracted jeopardy that will arise because of the cumbersome, long-

winded, unnecessary and expensive procedures that the Bill will lay upon the police service. Therefore, although double jeopardy is, we all hope, broadly speaking to be dealt with, protracted jeopardy will remain.
In thanking the hon. Lady, I hope not too churlishly, for dealing with the problem of double jeopardy, I must tell her that for a long time there will be deep resentment at the protracted jeopardy that police officers and their wives will be put under by the Bill.

Mr. Ivor Stanbrook: I should be the last to want to increase the difficulties of police officers as a result of the Bill, but we want to be satisfied that the hands of chief constables are not being unreasonably tied by the amendment. When it is a question whether what has been done amounts to a criminal offence, considerations apply that may not be applicable in the case of a disciplinary offence. A criminal offence must be proved beyond all reasonable doubt. That probably is not the case in disciplinary proceedings.
Misconduct may often amount to a criminal offence, in which case the opinion of the Director of Public Prosecutions is obtained. Nevertheless, it may remain a disciplinary offence, however one looks at it, so that when the Director of Public Prosecutions decides that there is not sufficient evidence, or decides for some other reason that there should be no prosecution, the chief constable's hands should not be tied in a way that prevents his proceedings.

Dr. Summerskill: I can assure the hon. Member for Barkston Ash (Mr. Alison) that the current guidance will still apply, and that the board will be bound to have regard to it by virtue of the guidance in Clause 3(8).
The doctrine of autrefois is a complex and difficult part of the common law, but, put as simply as possible, it means that a person cannot be brought before a court to be tried again on a charge of which he has already been acquitted.
The words "in substance the same" mean "substantially the same". That expression is frequently used in connection with police and other matters.

Question put and agreed to.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) BILL

Lords Amendments considered.

Clause 1

POWER TO ERECT FLAGPOLES ETC. ON HIGHWAYS

Lords Amendment: No. 1, in page 2, line 9, leave out "under an enactment".

9.50 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Guy Barnett): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Speaker: There are a large number of amendments, and I think I may be able to help the House. If right hon. and hon. Members do not wish to speak on amendments, I shall be able to put the Question en bloc. I understand that the Government will move to disagree on Lords Amendment No. 5. Unless hon. Members wish to discuss the first four amendments, by leave of the House I shall put the Question on the first four amendments together.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to.

New Clause A

TRADING NEAR HIGHWAYS

Lords Amendment: No. 5, after Clause 6, in page 7, line 34, at end insert:

"A.—(1) No person (other than a person selling, offering or exposing for sale or depositing for sale any foods, goods, provisions, articles or things at any market or fair for which a toll, stallage or rent is payable) shall use any shed, hut, shelter, booth, shop, stall or other erection whether on wheels or not or any vehicle or any container used with or without a stall on the verge or lay-by of any road to which this section applies or on any land adjacent to and within 15 yards of such verge, lay-by or road for the purpose of selling, offering, depositing or exposing for sale any food, goods, provisions, articles or things whatsoever other than newspapers.

(2) If any person contravenes the provisions of this section he shall be liable to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds and to a daily fine not exceeding five pounds.

(3) (a) This section applies to roads of any of the following descriptions—

(i) all trunk roads and roads which are classified as principal roads by the Secretary of State under the Local Government Act 1966;
(ii) any other county road, or part of a county road to which the highway authority may by order apply this section.
(b) Before making an order under this subsection the highway authority shall cause to be published once in each of two successive weeks in a local newspaper circulating in the locality in which the road is situated, a notice stating the general effect of the intended order and stating that within a period specified in the notice (not being less than twenty-eight days after the first publication of the notice) any person may object to the application by sending notice of his objection and of the grounds thereof to the highway authority.
(c) If, before the expiration of the period specified in the notice, any objection to the application is received by the highway authority, the highway authority shall consider any such objection and shall afford to any objector an opportunity of being heard by the highway authority before making the order.

(4) Nothing in this section shall apply to—

(a) any shed, hut, shelter, booth, shop, stall or other erection or any vehicle placed on private property by or with the consent of the owner of such property and with the permission of the highway authority;
(b) any building erected or work constructed with the consent of the Secretary of State in pursuance of section 194 of the Law of Property Act 1925 or of any other statutory provision or any scheme made pursuant to a statute;
(c) the sale of food, goods, provisions, articles or things from a vehicle when in use solely for the purpose of itinerant trading with the occupants of the premises adjoining any verge or land referred to in subsection (1) of this section;
(d) the sale of food, goods, provisions, articles or things from any premises used as a shop or as a petrol filling station pursuant to a permission granted or deemed to have been granted under the provisions of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 or any order or regulation made thereunder or in respect of which an enforcement notice cannot be served under section 87 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 by virtue of subsection (3) of that section; or
(e) the sale by the occupier of land used for agriculture or horticulture, and from such land, of the produce thereof, unless in relation to any particular location on such land a magistrates' court on the complaint of the highway authority under section 43 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1952 determines because of the use thereof for the purpose of such sale would adversely affect the safety of persons using the adjoining road that the exemption conferred by this paragraph shall not apply to that location


or that the said exemption shall not apply until any condition imposed by the court in relation to access to or facilities for the parking of the vehicles of persons likely to frequent the said location in connection with such sale has been complied with.

(5) (a) In giving their permission under paragraph (a) of subsection (4) of this section the highway authority may attach thereto such terms and conditions as they think fit.
(b) Where an application is made to a highway authority for a permission under paragraph (a) of subsection (4) of this section then unless within twenty-eight days from the date of the receipt of the application the highway authority give notice to the applicant of their decision on the application the provisions of paragraph (c) of this subsection shall apply in relation to the application as if the highway authority had refused to grant the permission applied for.
(c) Any person aggrieved by the refusal of the highway authority to grant permission under paragraph (a) of subsection (4) of this section or by the terms and conditions attached thereto may appeal to a magistrates' court and on any such appeal, the court may—

(i) if the appeal was against a refusal by order direct the highway authority to withdraw such refusal and to issue the permission for which application was made;
(ii) if the appeal was against the imposition of terms or conditions direct that the permission shall as specified in the direction, have effect either unconditionally or subject to such modified terms and conditions as may be so specified.
(d) Any breach of any terms and conditions imposed by the highway authority under paragraph (a) of this subsection shall be deemed as regards liability to a fine equivalent to a contravention of the provisions of this section.

(6) In this section—

(a) the expression "container" includes any basket, pail, tray, package or receptacle of any kind whether open or closed;
(b) the expression "private property" does not include common land or unenclosed moorland;
(c) the expression "vehicle" means a vehicle of any description drawn or propelled along roads whether by animal or mechanical power."

Mr. Guy Barnett: I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.
So far as the aims of the amendment are desirable, they can be met by existing general legislation. The Opposition withdrew this clause after putting it down in Committee in this House; it was then reintroduced in another place.
Local authorities already have powers to control activities on highways. Under the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1967

they may ban parking or restrict waiting. They may make traffic regulation orders to prevent danger to traffic or damage to the highway, for preventing the use of roads in an unsuitable manner, or for preserving or improving the amenities of the area through which the road runs. These powers may be cumbersome, but they do exist, and may be used in partciular problem areas, and authorities may take action against those who obstruct highways under Section 124 of the Highways Act 1959.
All these powers apply to highways, and do not prevent activities—such as roadside trading—which may take place on private land alongside roads. They do not, therefore, cover the area within 15 yards of the verge to which Clause 7(1) refers. The question we must consider is whether it is desirable that all roadside trading throughout the country—apart from certain exemptions in the clause—should be prevented by a blanket restriction.
The Government explained their position in Committee, in the House and in another place, and they have remained consistent. We acknowledge that roadside traders can be a nuisance, and that occasionally they can even be a roadside hazard, although we have found relatively little evidence of roadside trading causing accidents.

Mr. Keith Speed: The Minister referred to blanket powers. Will he confirm that if a local authority has private legislation containing these powers there is nothing to stop it bringing them in.

Mr. Barnett: The hon. Gentleman is correct. It is open to local authorities to promote local legislation and to include, if they need them, the provisions contained in existing local Acts. I recognise that this may be a greater problem in certain parts of the country than it is in others. Where it is a particular problem, it is open to the local authority to promote legislation to cope with it.
The roadside trader can provide a useful service, and we have relatively little evidence that roadside trading causes accidents, although I recognise that the position varies from one part of the country to another.
The Government have remained consistent in being opposed to blanket legislation, not least because they are afraid that a blanket position of this kind would make it extremely difficult for enforcement to be properly carried out and might lead to unnecessary bureaucracy, to which they would be opposed. For that reason I move for dismissal.

Mr. Tim Sainsbury: I appreciate why the Minister might, at least on this occasion, be hesitant about increasing bureaucracy, particularly as it relates to local authorities, and I am sure that on all sides of the House we would agree with him on this issue. However, I hope he would agree that the one defect with local Acts is that they apply in a local area. This means that one could end up with about 40 local Acts which have slightly varying provisions. That is the difficulty for the trader who is trying to conform to those Acts. If he is mobile, as indeed he might be, he might expect to trade in more than one area, and it is difficult enough, as I am sure the Minister would accept, for traders to keep up with the volume of legislation, particularly when the hon. Gentleman's Government are in power. If traders are to keep up with 40 local Acts as well, the burden will become almost impossible. That is only one of the defects of leaving this matter to local Acts.
Another defect is that not every local authority will wish to go through the procedures of bringing in a local Act. There are two aspects that I would briefly mention, as is reasonable at this hour with the volume of business that we have in front of us. A large number of arguments can be brought forward, and the Minister has mentioned some, in support of the objectives in this part of the Bill. One of them is unfair competition. I do not generally believe that competition is normally in any way unfair. But in this case there might be competition between people who come and go, who perhaps do not conform with the normal hygiene and other regulations, and people who are trying to conform with the regulations. I am thinking particularly of the catering trade and transport cafes. I am sure the Minister is concerned that there should be proper provision along

the main routes for drivers. People who are trying to compete and provide the hygiene standards which, to be honest, have not always been provided in transport cafes would naturally resent the occasional trader who took advantage of the inevitable slowness of authorities in enforcing hygiene regulations. To that extent, I think that competition for some roadside traders can be unfair.
But the other and perhaps more serious issue is in respect of litter. I am sure the Minister is aware, as all of us are, of the very serious problem of litter along roads. We are not actually talking about motorways in this context, but some rather frightening statistics have been produced about the amount of litter that is collected from motorway divides and along the routes of motorways. We must also bear in mind the cost of collecting the litter.
When we think of the cost to local authorities of enforcing legislation, as envisaged in this part of the Bill, we also have to take into account the cost to local authorities of dealing with the consequences of not having that control. I suggest that one of the major consequences is the problem of litter. It would be very difficult, as I am sure the Minister will recognise, even if we provided all the necessary litter bins and all the signs, to ensure that the public do not discard wrapping papers, tin cans and all sorts of other stuff on the verges of the roads.
If, however, one has a measure of control over the trading operations likely to give rise to litter, the litter can at least be localised in the sense that one can ensure that it will be left largely in places where one can provide not only the maximum number of litter bins, notices and so on—

It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That, at this day's Sitting, the consideration of Lords Amendments to the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill and the Motion relating to the Sound Broadcasting of the Proceedings of the House may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Pendry.]

LOCAL GOVERNMENT (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) BILL

Question again proposed, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Sainsbury: One of the advantages of legislation along the lines of the Lords amendment is that it would provide all local authorities with the opportunity to ensure that the generation of litter was more concentrated, and concentrated in areas where the authorities could provide litter bins, notices and so forth which would go some way to enlist public cooperation in this major problem.
That aspect of the matter should not be forgotten. The Minister said that the Government's attitude has been con

sistent, and I do not contradict him on that, but there is a genuine problem here, and it is one which should most properly be dealt with by general legislation rather than local Acts. Even at this late stage, I ask whether we could agree to include something along the lines suggested by the other place.
The problem remains serious. The Minister spoke of the danger of road accidents and so on, though perhaps there is not at this stage very much evidence on that score, but the other arguments relating to unfair competition between those who are trying to adhere to the hygiene rules and those who may not be making the same effort, and to litter spread at random along the verges of roads, afford strong reason for our keeping this matter closely in mind and returning to it at an early opportunity.

Mr. Speed: I endorse what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Hove (Mr. Sainsbury). We are a little disappointed at the Minister's attitude, although, to be fair to the Government, they have been consistent both in Standing Committee and in the other place. The Minister will recall that my hon. Friends and I supported a clause of this kind in Committee. The new clause was moved in the other place by my noble Friend Baroness Young, and it was there carried.
I understand that after withdrawal of the clause in Committee in the House of Lords 47 metropolitan counties were asked by circular letter from the Association of County Councils whether they had in their existing Acts powers similar to those which we are now discussing and, if so, what use they had made of them. They were asked also whether they were in a position to exercise such powers if they were included in the present Bill, as the other place subsequently decided.
I understand that most of the 47 counties circulated by the Association of County Councils replied within a fortnight, which indicates the seriousness with which they view the subject. Of the 36 counties which replied, 24 said that similar powers already existed in local legislation. There is a discrepancy between the number given by the Department of the Environment and the number shown up as a result of the inquiries, and I think that this arises because some of the metropolitan counties and other counties merged or were amalgamated under the reorganisation of 1974. I should add that 18 of the 24 counties having the powers said that they made substantial use of them.
As my hon. Friend said, there are several problems here. He paid specific attention to litter. There is the road safety problem also. I do not overstress it, but it is none the less there. There is certainly the matter of hygiene, and many counties, especially of those on holiday routes, for example, in the South-West of England and my native county of Kent—which I believe to be the Minister's native county, too—where we have many cars passing down to the Channel ports, experience a genuine hygiene prob-

lem, especially at this time of year. There is also the question of amenities, which is of particular concern to the national parks, as well as the problem of unfair competition, to which my hon. Friend referred.
I am certainly not one to wish this House or the other place to pass more and more petty legislation or to drive out bona fide free enterprise traders, but the fact is that a lot of the competition represented by roadside traders is unfair because the existing trader in the town or village has to pay his rates and his rent or he has his investment in the building, and he has to conform with all kinds of hygiene and other regulations. It is difficult for a cafe owner, for example, to understand why in some cases a county council is unable or unwilling to act when, from the point 3f view of hygiene and various other matters, roadside traders can apparently carry on in defiance of the law.
We have to be careful that we do not take an enormous mallet to kill what is a small fly, although it is an important one. Is there not some way in which we can perhaps save local authorities and counties the trouble of having either to promote or to add to private legislation? That is why I intervened with the Minister when I did.
There is a problem for the Home Counties, for counties on holiday routes and counties on routes to the Lake District and Scotland. Even at this late hour, I hope that the Minister and his advisers will look at this matter again. I assure him that the Association of County Councils, a reputable and highly responsible body, has been in touch with me about this matter today. Good arguments have been used both in this House and in the other place about this matter. Therefore, I hope that the Minister will take a fresh look at the problem.

Mr. Guy Barnett: This has been a very useful debate, and the hon. Member for Hove (Mr. Sainsbury) and the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Speed) have made a number of well-justified points. They mentioned, for instance, the problems of hygiene and of litter. I am in full agreement that we have a certain amount of nuisance as a consequence of


small traders. On the other hand, I think it is right for me to put the positive side because it has not perhaps been put to the degree that it might have been during our brief debate.
Some of those who provide the services provide good and useful services to drivers, whether lorry drivers or tourists. The clause would impose a complete ban—the House should be aware of this—on all trunk and principal roads throughout the country, apart from certain general exceptions and specific exemptions issued trader by trader. The House must be a little careful before it takes on board a clause of this kind. The duty of considering the applications made by each trader would be thrust on all the counties whether they wanted it or not. That would inevitably involve a measure of bureaucracy. In addition, the House must realise that there are serious problems of enforcement.
I recognise that there are problems. The hon. Member for Hove mentioned litter. That problem results not only from small traders. The hon. Member will agree that a great deal of litter outside football matches would be no argument for abolishing football matches, although it is a nuisance.

Mr. Sainsbury: I am sure the Minister will accept that, on the whole, football matches which generate litter take place in known locations on known occasions. Will not the Minister look possibly for legislation which would introduce a degree of control that would not perhaps go as far as requiring every individual trader to be licensed, so as to reduce the degree of bureaucratic intervention to which he has referred?

Mr. Barnett: In my first speech I mentioned the highway legislation which covers the person who trades at the side of the road. There is still a certain problem of enforcement, which I am sure the hon. Gentleman would recognise, whatever form of legislation we have.
I have said that this is a useful debate, and I have been asked by the hon. Member for Ashford to have another look at the matter. I shall do that, because I take seriously certain problems mentioned by the hon. Gentleman. I recognise that in cerain parts of the country, particularly Kent, the problem is diffi-

cult because of the degree to which that county is used by tourists and lorry drivers, as we both well know. On that assumption, and with the commitment that I shall look at the matter during the recess, I hope that the House will agree that the clause ought to be rejected.

Question, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment, put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to.

Clause 15

POWER OF LOCAL AUTHORITIES TO OBTAIN PARTICULARS OF PERSONS INTERESTED IN LAND

Lords Amendment: No. 9, in page 18, line 41, leave out "for the purpose of" and insert "with a view to".

Mr. Guy Barnett: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Speaker: I suggest that it will be convenient to take at the same time the following Lords Amendments:
No. 10, in page 18, leave out line 43 and insert:
considers that it ought to have information connected with".
No. 11, in page 19 line 6, at end insert:
; and
(c) any person who, in pursuance of an agreement between himself and a person interested in the land, is authorised to manage the land or to arrange for the letting of it,".
No. 12, in page 19, line 11, after third "the" insert:
nature of his interest in the land and the".
No. 13, in page 19, line 15, leave out "paragraph (b)" and insert:
the provisions of paragraphs (b) and (c)".
No. 14, in page 19, line 19, leave out "name or address" and insert "information".

Mr. Barnett: These are drafting amendments. The first makes it clear that a local authority may seek information under the clause before it is committed to performing the function for which it needs the information. The second amendment corrects an inconsistency with the remainder of the


clause. Information required may be either a name and address or the nature of an interest. It is, therefore, inaccurate to make the service of a notice dependent on the need to know only a name and address.

Mr. Graham Page: The Under-Secretary of State said that these were drafting amendments. They are far from being drafting amendments. Clause 15 gives a local authority power to require not only information about the ownership and occupation of land but the name and address of anyone who has an interest in the land.
As the clause stood, a local authority would have to have decided upon the function the purpose for which it required the information. The words were
Where, for the purpose of performing a function",
it required this information. With the amendment, the information could be required by a local authority if it were merely contemplating a function. It gives a local authority freedom to be a Nosey Parker about the ownership of and interests in land.
It may be argued that if someone owns or occupies land he should give his name and address to the local authority and state the interest that he has in the land. But there may be family interests and settlements which may not make it particularly pleasant for the owner of land to disclose the mortgages that he has on the land. If there is a specific function in connection with which he should disclose the information, there is some excuse for requiring him to give it. When, however, there is no specific function and the local authority is merely considering some function that it may undertake and therefore wants the information for that purpose, it is going too far to give such power to the local authority. The clause would give power to obtain information for altogether different reasons.
There is always the shadow of the Community Land Act and the acquisition of land under that Act for which the local authority may want information. There is the blighting of property by an inquiry of this kind when no specific

function is undertaken. For example, after an inquiry is made, when the owner of land who wishes to sell, is asked by a prospective purchaser's solicitor whether any proposals have been made by the local authority and whether he has been asked for any information, he will have to answer "I was asked for the names and addresses of everyone who has an interest in the land." That may blight his sale of the land.
That deals with Lords Amendments Nos. 9 and 10. Lords Amendment No. 11 relates to:
any person who, in pursuance of an agreement betwen himself and a person interested in the land, is authorised to manage the land or to arrange for the letting of it".
That might well include a solicitor who, under the terms of the amendment, would be obliged to disclose his client's affairs. It is normally recognised that if such a requirement is put into statutory form there is the saving provision that there shall not be a requirement to disclose anything that would be privileged under the law as it stands. However, that is omitted in this clause.
It was said in another place that the required information could be gained by means of the amendment in the case of property passing from company to company. We know of circumstances in which perhaps a rather shady company transfers property to another company to escape these inquiries. The amendment will not catch such companies but it may catch the innocent—for example, the solicitor who is given charge of his client's affairs, involving property held on trust. I have mentioned family settlements and trusts, but it might be more embarrassing to have to disclose outside trusts and settlements. Certainly it would be embarrassing for a solicitor to have to disclose his client's affairs in that way.
I believe that the amendments to Clause 15 are an unnecessary encroachment on the privacy of the individual. The clause was not especially harmful as it stood, but as it has been amended by another place it is an encroachment that we should resist.

10.15 p.m.

Mr. Sainsbury: I shall make two quick points in supporting my right hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr.


Page). First, as the clause is amended by Lords Amendment No. 9, there seems to be a slight contradiction between the first two lines of the clause and line 7 in page 19, which states that the authority may serve a notice
specifying the land and the function and the enactment which confers the function".
If we are to accept
with a view to performing a function",
I wonder how the Minister envisages the local authority dealing with the requirement that the notice must specify the land and the enactment which confers the function. How is the recipient of the notice to have any check that the notice fulfils the vague terms
with a view to performing a function",
conferred on a local authority as opposed to being clearly and specifically for the purpose of performing a function?
Secondly, the Minister suggested that we should disagree with Lords Amendment No. 5. He referred, quite sensibly, to the need to restrain bureaucracy. Does he agree that perhaps the clause is an invitation to generate bureacracy by unnecessary inquiries?

Mr. Guy Barnett: I shall try to answer this brief debate, but I admit that it has come as some surprise to me for several reasons. First, as the right hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) knows, the legislation which we are considering is well precedented. Presumably we are talking about provisions which have appeared in the past and to which, as far as I am aware, no previous objection has been taken. I think the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Speed) will confirm that previously no objection has been made in debate, although, as he knows, I cannot speak from personal experience, to the sort of provision now before us.
It is clear that for various statutory purposes local authorities need to obtain information from time to time about the ownership of property and other matters. Surely it is wrong to suggest that local authorities may wish to do so for all sorts of unseen and dangerous purposes. That seems to be the implication behind the remarks of Opposition Members.
The hon. Member for Ashford referred to Lords Amendment No. 11, and perhaps I might turn briefly to that

amendment. I believe that we should agree with the Lords in Amendments Nos. 11 and 12. They complement one another and are designed to make Clause 15 more effective by catering for a situation that might otherwise be exploited as a means of avoiding compliance with a notice.
Clause 15 as drafted enables a notice to be served on the occupier of the land and on anyone with an interest in the land as a freeholder, mortgagee or lessee or anyone who directly or indirectly receives rent for the land. However, where a person with an interest in land delegates its management and responsibility for its letting, the local authority can often only identify and make inquiries of the agent. The purpose of Amendment No. 11 is to enable this to be done. For example, it will help local authorities to trace landlords who attempt to avoid compliance with statutory notices by passing control or ownership of their properties from one company to another.
It is unreasonable to suggest that these provisions have an unseen motive. They are connected with the statutory responsibilities of local authorities in health and safety matters. I hope that the House will regard them as non-controversial and will be prepared to approve them.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to.

New Clause B

POWER OF CERTAIN COUNCILS WITH RESPECT TO DANGEROUS EXCAVATIONS

Lords Amendment: No. 24, after Clause 21, in page 27, line 8, at end insert new Clause B—

"B.—(1) Where a district council, a London borough council or the Common Council—

(a) considers that an excavation made at any time by some person on land in the area of the council is accessible to the public from a highway or a place of public resort and, by reason of its being unenclosed or inadequately enclosed, is a danger to the public and
(b) knows the name and address of no person appearing to the council to be an owner or occupier of the land on which it appears to the council that works to


remove the danger should be carried out either—

(i) has made reasonable but unsuccessful enquiries for the purpose of ascertaining the name and address of such a person, or
(ii) considers that in view of the imminence of the danger the delay involved in making enquiries or further enquiries about the name and address of such a person is unwarranted,
the council may carry out on the land mentioned in paragraph (b) of this subsection such works as appear to the council to be necessary for the purpose of removing the danger.

(2) Where such a council

(a) considers that an excavation made at any time by some person on land in the area of the council is as mentioned in paragraph (a) of the preceding subsection; and
(b) knows the name and address of a person appearing to the council to be an owner or occupier of the land on which it appears to the council that works to remove the danger in question should be carried out,
the council may serve on an owner or occupier of the land a notice specifying the excavation and stating that the council proposes to carry out, for the purpose of removing the danger in question such works as are specified in the notice at such places on the land as are so specified.

(3) If any person having an interest in or a right over land in respect of which a notice is served in pursuance of the preceding subsection objects to the notice on one or more of the following grounds, namely—

(a) that the excavation is not a danger to the public; or
(b) that works other than some or all of those specified in the notice are appropriate for the purpose of removing the danger; or
(c) that places other than some or all of those so specified are appropriate as the site of works for removing the danger,
he may, during the period of 21 days beginning with the date on which the notice was served, appeal to the county court against the notice.

(4) On such an appeal the court shall either quash the notice or dismiss the appeal or, where a ground of the appeal is the ground specified in paragraph (b) or (c) of the preceding subsection, modify the notice so that it refers only to works or, as the case may be, places which the appellant agrees or the appellants agree are appropriate for the purpose of removing the danger: but the notice shall not be modified by the court so as to refer to a place on land of which no appellant is an owner or occupier.

(5) If no appeal in pursuance of subsection (3) of this section is made against a notice within the period mentioned in that subsection or if on such an appeal the appeal is dismissed or the notice is modified as mentioned in the preceding subsection, the council which

served the notice may, at any time after the expiration of that period or, as the case may be, after the appeal is dismissed or the notice is modified, carry out the works specified in the notice at the places so specified.

(6) It shall be the duty of a council by which works have been carried out in pursuance of this section to maintain and repair the works except—

(a) so far as they consist of the filling in of the excavation in question;
(b) after the works have been removed in pursuance of the following subsection:
(c) in a case where the council has agreed with a person who is for the time being an owner or occupier of the land on which the works are situated that he shall maintain and repair the works and he has performed his obligations under the agreement.

(7) Where it appears to a council by which works have been carried out in pursuance of this section that if the works were removed the excavation in question would not be a danger to the public, then—

(a) the council may remove the works and
(b) it shall be the duty of the council to remove the works, except so far as they consist of the filling in of the excavation in question, if it is requested to do so by a person having an interest in or a right over the land on which the works are situated.

(8) Without prejudice to the powers conferred by section 37 of the Local Government Act 172 (which authorises a local authority to incur expenditure which it considers is in the interests of its area or inhabitants of its area), a district council, a London borough council or the Common Council may pay to any person the whole or part of the expenses incurred by him in carrying out works for preventing or removing danger to the public from an excavation made at any time by some person on land in the area of the authority, whether or not the person who incurred the expenses had a duty to carry out any such works."

Mr. Guy Barnett: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Speaker: With this we may discuss Lords Amendment No. 25, in page 27, line 8, at end insert New Clause C—

Provisions supplementary to section (Power of certain councils with respect to dangerous excavations)

"C.—(1) A person authorised in writing in that behalf by such a council as is mentioned in subsection (1) of the preceding section may enter on any land in the area of the council for the purpose of—

(a) ascertaining whether the land is suitable as the site of works which the council may carry out or for which the council may serve a notice in pursuance of that section; or


(b) carrying out, maintaining, repairing or removing in pursuance of that section any works on behalf of the council; or
(c) ascertaining whether any works carried out by the council in pursuance of that seciton should be or have been maintained, repaired or removed.

(2) A person authorised by a council to enter on land in pursuance of the preceding sub-section—

(a) shall, if so required before or after entering on the land, produce evidence of his authority to enter;
(b) may take with him on to the land such other persons and such equipment as are necessary for achieving the purpose for which he was authorised to enter on the land;
(c) shall, if the land is unoccupied when he enters or the occupier is then temporarily absent, leave the land as effectually secured against trespassers as he found it.

(3) If a person having an interest in or a right over any land suffers damage in consequence of the carrying out, maintaining, repairing or removing of works by a council in pursuance of the preceding section or the exercise by a person authorised by a council of a power conferred by subsection (1) or (2)(b) of this section or a failure of such a person to perform the duty imposed by subsection (2)(c) of this section, the person who suffers the damage shall, subject to the following subsection, be entitled to recover compensation for the damage from the council, and subsection (5) of section 28 of this Act shall have effect for the purposes of this subsection as if for the reference to subsection (4) of that section there were substituted a reference to this subsection.

(4) No compensation shall be payable by virtue of the preceding subsection, to any person having an interest in the site of the excavation in question, in respect of damage attributable to the presence of permanent works on any land other than damage attributable to interference with an easement or profit.

(5) If a person—

(a) wilfully obstructs another person in the exercise of a power conferred on the other person by subsection (1) or (2)(b) of this section; or
(b) while another person is on land in pursuance of the said subsection (2)(b) wilfully obstructs him in doing things connected with the works in question; or
(c) without the agreement of the council by which works have been carried out in pursuance of the preceding section, removes or otherwise interferes with the works,
he shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding £100.

(6) Nothing in the preceding section or the preceding provisions of this section applies to an excavation—

(a) on operational land of statutory undertakers; or

(b) on land of the National Coal Board of such a description as the Secretary of State may specify by regulations made by statutory instrument;
and the definition of 'operational land' in section 222 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 shall apply for the purposes of paragraph (a) of this subsection as if in that section 'statutory undertakers' had the same meaning as in that paragraph and 'undertaking' had a corresponding meaning."

Mr. Barnett: New Clause B is aimed at implementing an undertaking given in Committee. The purpose of the substantive clause is to allow local authorities to carry out works to enclose dangerous excavations such as pits, wells and shafts which are not on public land but which are accessible to the public. Serious personal accidents, especially to children, obviously arouse very strong public reaction. As a result, some authorities have sought and been granted powers in local Acts.
It is not our intention that the powers should be applied to large tracts of water which may of course be used for recreational or amenity purposes. The clauses in any case do not apply to natural depressions; and excavations on operational land of statutory undertakers are also excluded.
The intention is that local authorities will have a power to take preventive measures in the sort of place which will have gained a degree of notoriety in the locality. Clearly it would be in everyone's interest for the owner or occupier of the source of danger himself to render the land safe, not least for his own protection against possible legal proceedings for negligence. But it may not always be possible to ascertain who is responsible for the land, and an owner or occupier may have neither the desire nor the means to carry out the necessary works. In such circumstances the authority may feel impelled to resort to these powers.
The clauses seek a balance between, on the one hand, prompt action by a council once it has identified a source of danger and, on the other, the provision of reasonable safeguards for the rights of owners and occupiers of private land on which works are proposed or sited.

Mr. Graham Page: I agree with the spirit of these clauses. However. I regard them as defective. These provisions give power to a local authority to go on to land in order to right a danger by


enclosing an excavation or whatever it may be. If there is an imminent danger, a council can go to land and spend money to carry out works to remove that danger. It can serve a notice on an owner, and if that notice is upheld by the court and the work is not carried out the council itself can carry out the work. The question is, who pays for this? As the clause stands, if the council carries out the work, either by reason of the fact that the danger is imminent and it does not know who is the owner or occupier or because the owner or occupier fails to carry out the notice, the local authority is left with the cost of the works.
Subsection (8) of New Clause B says that the council can even pay out money to someone to do the work. Subsection (3) of New Clause B says that the council can pay compensation to the owner or occupier for any damage it may do to the land in carrying out the works. But here is a danger which has been created by the owner or occupier of the land. Why should the ratepayer pay for that to be righted? The wrong has been caused by the owner or occupier.
I would have hoped that there would be provision in the clause for recovery of the costs from the person who was responsible for having the dangerous condition on his land, that if the money was not paid it should become a charge on the property and that the amount should be registrable as a local land charge. After all, this sort of thing is done in the case of street work charges and on many other occasions when local authorities have to spend money on other people's land.
It seems to me that the two clauses are defective, first in regard to the absence of any provision that the cost can be recovered from the person who has caused the danger, and secondly, because if the costs are not paid there is no provision for their becoming a charge on the land and being registrable as a local land charge. Frequently, quite considerable expense could be caused in protecting these dangerous areas. It might be a matter of building a wall or filling in, or some other form of work carried out on the land which might cause considerable cost to the ratepayers. Why should ratepayers as a whole pay

for the remedying of a danger caused by a landowner or occupier?

Mr. Guy Barnett: I am interested in the right hon. Gentleman's point. Offhand, I cannot answer him definitely on the specific issue about whether any payment can in certain circumstances be charged to an individual or to a company which owns land upon which a dangerous piece of excavation, a pit or whatever it might be exists. On the other hand, I think the right hon. Gentleman will admit that the whole purpose behind the clause is to enable the local authority to act, and to act quickly, where there are dangers, which might involve children.
In that respect, I think that I could justify to the House that the cost should fall upon the ratepayer in the sense that there could be a public danger, whoever happened to own the land. It would be a danger to grown-ups and to children, and in that sense one could justify the charge falling on the rates. On the other hand, I take the right hon. Gentleman's point concerning a hazard on private land and people being affected. I do not know what the precise legal situation would be about this. Presumably the law of trespass and so on would be involved. May I write to the right hon. Gentleman on that? I hope that in other respects he, like the rest of the House, welcomes the clause.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords amendment agreed to.

Clause 22

ALTERATIONS OF SUPPLEMENTAL PROVISIONS OF PUBLIC HEALTH ACTS

Lords amendment: No. 26, in page 28, line 24, after "295" insert ",section 313".

Mr. Guy Barnett: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
This amendment was made to prevent the repeal of Section 313 of the Act of 1936 by this clause from having an undesirable side effect. Subsection (6) of the clause as it left this House made it clear that the repeal of Sections 295 and 314 of the Public Health Act 1936 did not affect any Order made under those sections which might still be in force. We realised that it was possible that


Orders made under Section 313 might also still exist, and these should likewise be allowed to continue. Without the amendment, the repeal of Section 313 would allow them to lapse, with the result that any amended local Act provision would revert to its original unacceptable form.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 23

FUNDS OF LOCAL AUTHORITIES ETC.

Lords Amendment: No. 27, in page 28, line 36, after first "funds" insert ",Housing Revenue Accounts".

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine): With this we may take Lords Amendment No. 28, in page 30, line 12, at end insert:
18. Money received from the disposal of any property the income from which or the expenditure on which is included in a local authority's Housing Revenue Account shall not without the consent of the Secretary of State he paid into a fund established by the authority under paragraph 16 of this Schedule.

10.30 p.m.

Mr. Guy Barnett: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
These are purely drafting amendments.

Mr. Graham Page: The Minister has used the word "drafting" but I must disagree with him. I urge him to give a better explanation about this. The clause says that a local authority may set up capital funds. Then it says that, if the authority sells a house, the rent of which goes into the housing revenue account, the capital realised on the sale must also go into the revenue account.
I do not understand why it should be paid into the revenue account unless the Secretary of State allows it to be paid in another way. Surely, if the rent on the house goes into the revenue account, the capital realised from the sale does not go into that account as well—or am I wrong?

Mr. Guy Barnett: The reason why these are drafting amendments is that they are designed to correct an omission in Clause 23. Clause 23 enables local authorities to set up such funds as they consider appropriate. This is achieved

by replacing paragraphs 16 to 18 of Schedule 13 to the Local Government Act 1972 with new paragraphs 16 and 17. But as they stood when the Bill left this House the two new paragraphs did not take account of certain amendments which already had been made to the existing paragraphs. Those amendments provided that capital money received from the disposal of properties within the housing revenue account was not paid into a capital fund without the consent of the Secretary of State, which in practice is rarely given.
The reason for this is to ensure that the benefit of such receipts should accrue to the housing revenue account. If they were paid into the capital fund they could be used for other purposes and thus be lost to the housing revenue account. These amendments ensure that this safeguard is continued.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords amendment agreed to.

Clause 24

REPAYMENT OF UNCLAIMED COMPENSATION ETC. PAID INTO COURT

Lords Amendment: No. 29, in page 31, line 23, at end insert:
(4) For the purposes of the preceding subsection any land held by a parish or community council shall be treated as held by the district council whose area includes the area of the parish or community council.

Mr. Guy Barnett: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
As the Bill was drafted, a district council would have been unable to make an application to the court in respect of money paid into court by its predecessor, prior to 1st April 1974, on behalf of a parish or community council because it would no longer hold the land, which would have been transferred on acquisition to the local council, which is not a local authority for the purposes of the clause.
The amendment deals with the point by making clear that in such circumstances the district council can apply to the court even though the land is now held by the parish council or community council. This problem does not arise


in respect of acquisitions of land made after 1st April 1974 because in such cases there is no requirement that the land should still be held by a local authority as defined.

Question put and agreed to.

New Clause D

INDEMNITIES FOR OFFICERS OF LOCAL AUTHORITIES APPOINTED AS RECEIVERS OR ADMINISTRATORS

Lords Amendment: No. 30, in page 32, line 15, at end insert new Clause D—
D. If an officer of a local authority is appointed as a receiver for a patient in pursuance of section 105 of the Mental Health Act 1959 or, on the nomination of the authority, as the administrator of the estate of a deceased person, the authority may pay to the officer any sum which he becomes liable to pay in consequence of the appointment and may pay the premiums in respect of any policy of insurance for indemnifying the officer from the consequences of any act or omission connected with the appointment which occurs while he holds the appointment.

Mr. Guy Barnett: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
This new clause was inserted in the Bill to meet an undertaking given to my hon. Friend the Member for Ormskirk (Mr. Kilroy-Silk), who moved a similar clause in Committee. We could not accept his clause because it was defective in a number of respects, but my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Wales accepted it in principle and promised to put down a Government amendment to achieve the same result.
The new clause will authorise local authorities to reimburse their officers who act as receivers for mental patients or administrators of estates for any loss incurred by them in either of those capacities.

Mr. Graham Page: I rise only to correct an impression given in another place which appeared to make the amendment too narrow in its aspect. It was said that the amendment would apply almost exclusively to the case where the person entitled to an order, in the case of someone being found mentally unsound, or in the case of a deceased's estate, was a child. The local authority would then step in and

take out the order in the place of the child. But this happens in a great number of cases where persons other than children are entitled to an order or where the local authority cannot trace the person concerned. If the authority finds in one of its old people's homes an elderly person who has become of unsound mind and has some property which should be looked after, quite rightly the local authority proposes to the Court of Protection that a receiver should be appointed. It happens more frequently where a relative is not known than in the case of a child being entitled to an order in respect of its parents.
This is an extremly useful clause. It applies only in the case of negligence or misappropriation by an officer of the local authority. If the officer is acting quite properly and happens to make a loss in the estate, he is protected, he being a trustee acting properly for the estate. It is only if he is negligent or deliberately misappropriates a property that the local authority would be entitled under the clause to pay for his wrong-doing. I imagine that local authorities would have an insurance bond in such cases. The clause is far more useful than it was explained to be in another place.

Question put and agreed to.

New Clause E

RESTORATION OF SUPPLY OF WATER, GAS OR ELECTRICITY

Lords Amendment: No. 31, after Clause 26, in page 32, line 20, at end insert new Clause E:

"E.—(1) If any premises in the area of a district council, a London borough council or the Common Council are occupied as a dwelling and the supply of water, gas, or electricity to the premises—

(a) is cut off in consequence of the failure of the owner or former owner of the premises to pay a sum payable by him in connection with the supply; or
(b) is in the opinion of the council likely to be cut off in consequence of a such a failure,
the council may, at the request in writing of the occupier of the premises, make such arrangements as it thinks fit with the undertakers who provided the supply for it to be restored to the premises or, as the case may be, for it to be continued to the premises.

(2) Where under arrangements made in pursuance of the preceding subsection in respect


of any premises a council makes a payment in respect of a sum which, at the time when the relevant supply to the premises was, or became likely to be, cut off as mentioned in that subsection, a person was liable to pay in connection with the supply to the undertakers who provided it, the council shall be entitled to demand and recover from that person a sum equal to the payment; and where under such arrangements a council makes a payment in respect of the restoration of a supply to any premises or a payment for a supply to any premises, the council shall be entitled to demand and recover from the owner of the premises a sum equal to the payment reduced by any amount received by the council in pursuance of subsection (4) of this section in respect of the payment.

(3) A council by which a sum is recoverable from a person in pursuance of the preceding subsection shall also be entitled to recover from him interest on the sum, from the date of service of the demand for the sum, at the rate fixed by section 171(2) of the Local Government Act 1972; and such a demand must—

(a) be served on the recipient in writing; and
(b) give particulars of the payment to which the sum demanded relates; and
(c) in the case of a demand for a sum on which interest is payable by virtue of this subsection, state the rate of the interest and that interest is payable from the date aforesaid.

(4) Where by virtue of the preceding provisions of this section a council is entitled to recover from the owner of any premises a sum on account of a payment in respect of the restoration or continuation of a supply to the premises or a payment for a supply to the premises or interest on such a sum and—

(a) the owner of the premises is, under the terms on which a person occupies the premises, required to pay for a supply of the kind to which that sum relates; and
(b) the council has served a notice on that person requiring him to pay to the council, instead of to the owner of the premises, the rent for the premises which apart from this subsection is or becomes payable by him to the owner of the premises,
it shall be the duty of that person to comply with the notice except so far as the council directs otherwise and the council may accordingly recover from him from time to time sums equal to the rent in question.

(5) In this section "the owner", in relation to any premises, means a person who apart from the preceding subsection is entitled on his own behalf or as a trustee or agent for another person to rent for the premises from the occupier of the premises and "former owner", in relation to any premises, means a person who was so entitled to rent for the premises from the occupier or former occupier of the premises."

Mr. Guy Barnett: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
The amendment was introduced in another place as a Government amendment. My hon. Friend the Member for Ormskirk (Mr. Kilroy-Silk) introduced a clause of similar effect in Committee here and the Government undertook to bring in their own clause. The amendment discharges that undertaking. It is to allow a local authority to help an occupier whose gas, water or electricity supply has been cut off or is likely to be cut off because his landlord is responsible for paying the bill and has not done so. The clause allows an authority to make the necessary payment to the undertakers to have the supply restored or maintained and to recover its expenses from the landlord, with interest.
A typical case where a local authority could use this power is as follows. A tenant pays a rent which is inclusive of electricity. He is up to date with his rent payments but the landlord for some reason has not paid the electricity bill. After the usual warnings, the electricity board will cut off the supply and the tenant can suffer hardship through no fault of his own. Of course he could probably sue his landlord for breach of contract, but that would take time and meanwhile he is in darkness.

Mr. Graham Page: I agree with the spirit of the clause, but in many ways it is defective. I do not think that it is clear whether the amount owing by the owner must be in respect of premises for which the occupier has asked that the local authority should pay. Suppose that the owner is owing the electricity or gas bill on some other property. Can the local authority pay that amount in order to save the occupier's supply from being cut off? There should be a definition here.
Although "owner" is defined in the clause, there is no definition of "occupier". The process in the clause can be set in motion at the request in writing of the occupier of premises. Suppose that the occupier is a squatter—there is no requirement on the local authority to determine whether the request is from a lawful occupier. The account could be in dispute between the owner of the premises and the supplier. The owner might be justifiably withholding payment of the account but, without


notice to him; the authority can pay the account and divert the rent.
The clause should include provision for notice to be given to the owner that the local authority intends to pay the account—so that he may protest that, for instance, the request came from someone who was not a lawful occupier—and for notice to be given that the tenant was being told to divert rent to the local authority. There might be a dispute about the rent between the owner and the tenant.
The clause has great merits in meeting hard cases, but hard cases can make bad law unless we are careful. Insufficient care has been taken in the drafting of the clause to ensure that it applies only to the hard cases to which it is intended to apply. I should like to have seen a definition of "occupier", so that a squatter could not put the process in motion, and a requirement for local authorities to notify owners of action which they propose to take.

Mr. Guy Barnett: I am glad that the right hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) at least accepts the spirit of the clause. Before he sees too many dangers in it, I should point out that it gives local authorities the power to assist occupiers—who could, I imagine, include squatters in certain circumstances—but that I do not read it as meaning that squatters could set the process in motion. A typical case in which a local authority might use its power could involve an elderly person suffering from hypothermia during the winter. It is wrong to imagine that authorities would use their powers in all the circumstances described by the right hon. Member.

Mr. Graham Page: A local authority does not even have to ask an owner whether the person who made the request is a lawful occupier of the premises. An authority could act immediately on the request of someone who claimed to be the occupier of premises.

10.45 p.m.

Mr. Barnett: The key word used by the right hon. Member was "could". I am sure he shares my belief that the relevant department of a local authority would act with sense and discretion in these circumstances. One cannot legis-

late concerning local authorities down to the last jot and tittle. All I am suggesting is that the local authority should be in a position to use the powers provided by the clause and that the matters to which the right hon. Gentleman is referring can only be left to the local authority's discretion to make suitable arrangements with the owner and the supplier concerning a distressed individual or family.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to.

New Clause G

REMOVAL OF OBSTRUCTIONS FROM PRIVATE SEWERS

Lords Amendment: No. 36, after Clause 28, page 36, line 5, at end insert new Clause G:

"G.—(1) If a private sewer is obstructed at a point within the area of a local authority (other than a county council and the Greater London Council), the authority may serve on each of the persons who is an owner or occupier of premises served by the sewer, or on each of those persons as the authority thinks fit, a notice requiring the recipients of notices in pursuance of this subsection in respect of the obstruction to remove it before a time specified in the notice; and that time shall not be earlier than forty-eight hours after the service of the notice or, if different notices in respect of the same obstruction are served in pursuance of this subsection at different times, shall not be earlier than forty-eight hours after the latest of those times.

(2) If an obstruction in respect of which notices have been served by an authority in pursuance of the preceding subsection is not removed within the period specified in the notices, the authority may remove it.

(3) Where an authority has reasonably incurred expenses in removing an obstruction in pursuance of the preceding subsection, the authority may serve on each of the persons on whom it served notice in pursuance of subsection (1) of this section in respect of the obstruction a further notice—

(a) requiring him to pay to the authority a sum equal to so much of his expenses as is specified in the further notice; and
(b) specifying the other persons on whom notices in pursuance of this subsection have been or are to be served in respect of the expenses and the amount specified or to be specified in each of those notices;
and it shall be the duty of the authority, in determining what amounts to specify in notices to be served by the authority in pursuance of this subsection in respect of any expenses, to have regard to any matters which appear to the authority to indicate the cause of the


obstruction and, so far as the authority are aware of the obligations, to any obligations to remove the obstruction which arose under agreements between persons on whom the notices are to be served.

(4) A person on whom a notice is served in pursuance of the preceding subsection may, within the period of six weeks beginning with the date of service of the notice, appeal to the county court against the notice on the ground that it would be reasonable for the whole or part of the sum specified in the notice to he paid by some other person who is an owner or occupier of premises served by the sewer in question.

(5) On an appeal in pursuance of the preceding subsection against a notiice the court shall either dismiss the appeal or order that the whole or part of the sum specified in the notice shall he paid to the authority which served the notice by—

(a) a person, other than the appellant, who is an owner or occupier of premises served by the sewer in question; or
(b) persons, other than the appellant, each of whom is such an owner or occupier, in such proportions as are specified in the order,
and that the sum specified in the notice shall be reduced accordingly; the court shall not order any payment by a person other than the appellant unless that person has, not later than the beginning of the period of eight days ending with that on which the hearing of the appeal is begun, been made a respondent to the appeal in accordance with rules of court.

(6) Where a local authority has served a notice on a person in pursuance of subsection (3) of this section, then—

(a) if the person has not appealed against the notice in pursuance of subsection (4) of this section within the period specified in that subsection, the authority shall be entitled after the expiration of that period to recover from him the sum specified in the notice; and
(b) if he has so appealed within that period and the court has not reduced to nil the sum specified in the notice, the authority shall be entitled after the determination of the appeal to recover from him the sum specified in the notice or, if the court has reduced that sum to a smaller sum, the smaller sum.

(7) Expressions used in this section and in Part II of the Public Health Act 1936 have the same meanings in this section as in that Part; and sections 287 and 288 of that Act (which confer power to enter premises and penalise obstruction) shall have effect as if references to that Act included references to this section."

Mr. Guy Barnett: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
This new clause is designed to complement Section 17 of the Public Health Act 1961. It was accepted in principle

during the Committee stage in this House. It was one of a number of provisions sponsored by the Association of Metropolitan Authorities.
What is not so much wrong as deficient in the existing provision is that the local authority may serve a notice only on the person responsible for the premises where the blockage is found to have occurred, even though other people may derive benefit from the sewer and, of course, may have caused the blockage rather than the person on whom the notice is served. Frequently it is impossible to assign responsibility to any one person. It is therefore sensible in such cases to spread responsibility amongst the parties who are affected by the blockage.

Mr. Graham Page: In this case, the clause does give power to the local authority to pass on the cost to someone else. It gives the authority a rather wider discretion as to the apportionment of the cost and so on, and quite rightly so. However, it might be a very large amount. There might be a considerable amount of work to be done in pulling up the drains, unblocking them, perhaps laying new drains, and so on. A large sum may be involved.
As the clause stands, the local authority would be under an obligation to pursue people for payment at once. This might he a very severe blow to some small owners who find themselves faced with having to meet large costs. It is right that they should do so, because the blockage has occurred on their land. However, it would have been better if there had been provision to make this a charge on the property, and registrable as a local land charge on the property, so that the local authority would feel that it had clone its duty by getting the debt secured on the property. If ever the property were sold in the future, it could be paid out of the proceeds. This is a very convenient way of collecting large sums of money which the owner or occupier cannot pay at once. It is adopted in many other cases in which local authorties have had to pay out sums of money.
I would have hoped to see in the clause a provision not that the debt becomes recoverable immediately from the owners of the property if they do not have the


money to pay but that in such cases it could become a charge on the property and formally secured on the property for payment in due course.

Question put and agreed to.

New Clause H

CONTROL OF PARKING ON AREAS USED FOR LOADING OR UNLOADING GOODS VEHICLES

Lords Amendment: No. 37, after Clause 29, in page 36, line 14, insert New Clause H—

"H.—(1) If it appears to a county council or the Greater London Council that any land in its area which is not part of a highway has been set apart by the occupier of the land for use as a place where vehicles may be driven and parked for the purpose of being loaded or unloaded in connection with a trade or business carried on on or in the vicinity of the land, the council may, by an order made with the consent of the owner and the occupier of the land—

(a) designate the land as an area to which the following provisions of this section apply (hereafter in this section referred to as a "loading area") and
(b) specify the trade or business in question.

(2) A council which has made an order in pursuance of the preceding subsection—

(a) may vary the order by a subsequent order made with the consent of the owner and the occupier of the land to which the subsequent order relates; and
(b) may revoke the order by a subsequent order made with the consent of the owner and the occupier of the loading area in question; and
(c) shall revoke the order by a subsequent order if requested in writing to do so by the owner and occupier of the loading area in question.

(3) An order in pursuance of subsection (1) or (2)(a) of this section may contain provisions prohibiting the parking in the loading area to which the order relates of vehicles of such kinds as are specified in the order, except authorised vehicles, at all times or at times so specified and may make different provision in pursuance of the preceding provisions of this subsection for different parts of the area; and in this subsection "authorised vehicle", in relation to a loading area, means a goods vehicle as defined by section 196(1) of the Road Traffic Act 172 which is in the area for the purpose of being loaded or unloaded in connection with the trade or business specified in the order designating the area.

(4) Section 84C(1) to (4) and (6) of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1967 (which relate to the procedure for making orders under the provisions of that Act which are specified in

subsection (1) of that section) shall have effect as if subsections (1) and (2) of this section were included among those provisions; and a person authorised in that behalf by a council by which an order has been made in pursuance of subsection (1) of this section may enter on the loading area to which the order relates for the purpose of placing any traffic signs which are required to be placed there by virtue of subsection (3)(e) of that section and for the purpose of maintaining or removing the signs.

(5) A person who, without reasonable excuse, causes a vehicle to be in any part of a loading area at a time when the parking of it there is prohibited by an order made in pursuance of subsection (1) of this section shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £50.

(6) Section 85(2) and (3) and section 90 of the said Act of 1967 (which provide for the giving of information to identify drivers of vehicles who are alleged to have committed offences to which the said section 85 applies and for the admission of certain written evidence in proceedings for such offences) shall have effect as if an offence under the preceding subsection were an offence to which the said section 85 applies and, in relation to an offence under the preceding subsection, as if in the said section 85(2) the words from "and in relation" onwards were omitted and for sub-paragraphs (i) and (ii) of paragraph (a) there were substituted the words "by a notice in writing given to him by a local authority (as defined by section 35(1) of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976) in whose area the loading area in question is situated".

(7) The Secretary of State may, by regulations made by statutory instrument, provide that sections 20, 52 and 53 of the said Act of 1967 (which among other things provide for the removal, storage and disposal of vehicles left on roads in contravention of a statutory prohibition) shall have effect, in relation to any vehicle which is or was in any part of a loading area while the parking of it in that part is or was prohibited by virtue of this section, with such additions, omissions and amendments as are prescribed by the regulations; and any statutory instrument made by virtue of this subsection shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.

(8) References in the preceding provisions of this section to an order in pursuance of subsection (1) of this section include, in the case of such an order which has been varied in pursuance of subsection (2)(a) of this section, references to the order as so varied."

Mr. Guy Barnett: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
Service areas in the neighbourhood of shops are often filled with parked cars that have no business to be there. These cars obstruct service vehicles and, in consequence, delivery vans are often forced


to manoeuvre and park on the public road, where, of course, they cause congestion and obstruction. Moreover, because the cars are parked on private land and not obstructing the highway, they cannot be controlled.
The clause therefore provides powers for county councils as traffic authorities to designate land by order as a service area, called in this clause a "loading area", so that private cars would be banned from parking on land so designated.

Mr. Speed: I thank the Under-Secretary for that explanation. I totally accept the need for the new clause. However, questions were raised in another place to which there were not satisfactory answers. I have not found satisfactory answers in the Lords amendments or in the Bill. Perhaps my right hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) has found satisfactory answers.
This matter involves the question of notices and publication to people who might be affected. We are, after all, talking of various penalties. In the new clause there are many references to other legislation. Perhaps I have missed something somewhere, but I think the Under-Secretary will find that this specific point was raised in another place. I do not think that his noble Friend gave an answer, and I shall be grateful if he can tell me—if not today, in early correspondence—that he is satisfied that the proper notices and publication to thoee affected are accounted for in the new clause.
The Under-Secretary will, I think, agree that it would be unfortunate if an order were passed and people who had been parking in a certain place for a considerable time suddenly found that they were committing an offence.

Mr. Graham Page: May I take the matter one step further? As I understand it, the clause would be set in motion by the owners of the land where parking was taking place requesting that there be these laws relating to that parking area. But it may not be only the owners or the occupiers of the land who are affected. The neighbours might be seriously affected by the parking provisions. It is therefore necessary to have some provision for notices before the new clause is applied to any area of land.

No doubt this can be done by a circular from the Department asking local authorities to be certain that they do not harm the neighbours without giving them notice or an opportunity of being heard in such a case.
This is really a provision to apply yellow lines to provide parking bays, yet the penalty is to be £50—much more than the ordinary parking penalty. Could the clause be applied by a fixed penalty order? Normally, when there is to be a fixed penalty on roads by the application of the yellow line, there can be a simple procedure applying the fixed penalty order—by sticking the parking ticket on the car.
Would that not be sufficient without provision for a possible fine of £50 in every case? If the fixed penalty provisions are not to apply, the courts will be given a lot of trouble and the police will be caused much trouble in attending court to give evidence. I hope that the clause can be applied by means of an order similar to the fixed penalty orders with which we are familiar.

Mr. Guy Barnett: The right hon. Gentleman is right on his last point. The Road Traffic Regulation Act 1967 prescribes a penalty of only £20 for contravening a parking order, while the maximum fine in the new clause is £50. I understand that £50 is the figure specified in recent local Acts, which is why it is included here. Of course, it also takes account to some degree of inflation. Another reason why a fine which means something may be important here is that I can imagine that in loading or service areas unregulated parking can cause considerable congestion and trouble to traders.
Local publicity for an order, coupled with traffic signs clearly indicating the effect of the order to persons entering the area, should do much of the work of keeping the areas clear for their proper use. Local publicity would be much easier to provide for as one would be dealing with specific areas.
The right hon. Gentleman was right to refer to the anxiety expressed in another place that these matters should be advertised and that there should be a chance for local objections. Under subsection (4), the provisions of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1967 about the


procedure in connection with the making of orders are to be applied. Therefore, there is provision here for proper advertising and for local objections to be heard.

Mr. Graham Page: May I press the hon. Gentleman on the question of the fixed penalty? I see that under subsection (7) the Secretary of State may by regulations bring in certain sections of the 1967 Act with regard to the removal of cars. Surely it would be convenient for the enforcement of the clause and for the courts and the police if the Secretary of State had power to make the normal fixed penalty orders, so that parking tickets could be stuck on the cars and the offence could be dealt with in that way.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 30

USE OF SPARE CAPACITY OF COMPUTERS AND PRINTING EQUIPMENT OF LOCAL AUTHORITIES

Lords Amendment: No. 38, in page 36, line 18, leave out "or printing equipment".

Mr. Guy Barnett: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may take the following Lords Amendments:
No. 39, in page 36, line 22, leave out "or equipment".
No. 40, in page 36, line 28, leave out "or equipment".
No. 41, in page 36, leave out line 29.
No. 43, in page 36, line 34, leave out from "information" to end of line 35.

Mr. Barnett: The main purpose of the clause, which was added on Report in this House, is to provide for the sale of spare time on computers. Printing was included because the rôle of spare printing capacity seemed to be on all fours with the role of spare computing capacity. But there is not the same need among local authorities for a power to sell spare printing capacity, and its inclusion proved to be a most controversial matter. It therefore seemed right for these amendments to be accepted, deleting printing from the clause.

Mr. Speed: I am grateful to the Minister for that explanation. It would have

been wrong for us to agree to the amendments without it, because it may well be that not all interested parties followed exactly what went on in another place. We are grateful that the Government responded to a widespread and understandable campaign. Many companies, large and small, were very worried about the matter.
The new clause came at short notice. When we discussed it on Report I put to the Minister certain questions, which he answered. We hoped that fears were set at rest, but that was not the case in many parts of the country. We had to have a balance between trying to be sensible to local authorities which might have spare capacity, for which their ratepayers would be paying, and the fears of not only printing companies but many members of the printing trade unions who made representations to me and to the Minister.
I think that the amendments put the situation right. I hope that they will receive wider publicity than they did when they were made in another place and that all connected with the printing industry will realise that their fears were groundless. I am much obliged to the Minister and to his noble Friends in another place for responding as they did.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to.

Clause 41

PROVISIONS AS TO PROPRIETORS

Lords Amendment: No. 52, in page 44, line 42, after "inspection" insert "and testing".

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.—[Dr. Summerskill.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may take Lords Amendments Nos. 54, 56, 62 and 63 in similar terms.

Mr. Graham Page: You called Lords Amendment No. 52, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I did not hear the Under-Secretary of State explain it. I heard a voice further down the Front Bench shout "Formally". I object to this way of proceeding when the Opposition have given


notice of the amendments with which they are concerned. We have allowed many amendments on which we did not need a debate to go through, but when we have given notice that we wish to ask questions about an amendment it should not be pushed through in that way.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The amendment has not gone through. It has been proposed.

11.0 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Dr. Shirley Summers-kill): Lords Amendments Nos. 52, 54, 56, 62 and 63 are of similar effect.
Clause 41(1) provides that a proprietor may be required by a district council to present his vehicle for inspection. It has been suggested during consultation that the word "inspection" alone may be insufficient and that since some testing activity may be necessary it should be made clear that the council is empowered to test as well as simply to inspect the vehicle. The first three amendments and the necessary references to testing where appropriate in Clause 41.
Clause 59 provides that an authorised officer or a constable may at all reasonable times inspect, for the purpose of ascertaining its fitness, any hackney carriage or private hire car or any taximeter fitted to such vehicle. This is an enforcement measure, in the nature of a spot check, but the power to inspect may not in itself be sufficient. Some degree of testing of the vehicle or of the meter may be desirable. The fourth amendment seeks to clarify the position by adding the power to test the vehicle and/ or the meter.
The last amendment makes the like provision with respect to the subsequent presentation, following a spot check at which the authorised officer or constable was not entirely satisfied, of the vehicle or its meter for further inspection and testing.

Mr. Graham Page: I want to question the addition of "and testing" and explore what is involved for local authorities. A large number of clauses deal with the control by local authorities of taxis and private hire cars. The inspection and control of private hire cars will put a heavy burden on local authorities. Time

and again the House is blamed for putting more and more duties on local authorities and thereby increasing the cost of local authority work and increasing the rates.
I am fearful that the addition of "and testing" which applies to private hire cars—testing three times a year, according to one clause—will put a burden on local authorities in setting up testing stations. Are they to have their own testing stations for private hire cars in order to test them up to three times a year? If so, it really will be a severe burden and expense to the ratepayers. Is it meant simply as a spot check or as a proper test like the test we know as the MOT test, although those initials are somewhat out of date? On the other hand, is the local authority to have the power to designate garages to carry out these tests rather as the Ministry has designated garages to carry out the MOT tests?
The clauses do not give us a clue as to what is intended by the two words "and testing" which are now to be added. Can the Minister give us a little more information about what is expected of the local authorities and, therefore, what the ratepayers will have to pay?

Dr. Summerskill: I think the right hon. Gentleman will agree that merely to inspect a vehicle for fitness is not really an adequate way of ascertaining its fitness, and it is clearly necessary to test it. That is the sole reason why testing was added. If it is the desire of the House to ascertain the fitness of any vehicle, testing is obviously part of that. With regard to the actual procedure of the testing and whether there will be specially designated garages, I shall write to the right hon. Gentleman.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to.

Committee appointed to draw up a Reason to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to one of their Amendments to the Bill: Mr. Guy Barnett, Mr. Harper, Mr. Michael Morris, Mr. Speed and Dr. Summerskill; Three to be the quorum.—[Mr. Guy Barnett.]

To withdraw immediately.

Reason for disagreeing to one of the Lords Amendments reported, and agreed to; to be communicated to the Lords.

BRITISH LEYLAND (FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE)

11.8 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Industry (Mr. Eric G. Varley): I beg to move,
That this House authorises the National Enterprise Board, on the direction of the Secretary of State, given under section 3 of the Industry Act 1975, to pay or undertake to pay by way of financial assistance under section 8 of the Industry Act 1972, as amended by section 22 of, and Part I of Schedule 4 to, the Industry Act 1975, in respect of a loan to British Leyland Limited or any of its subsidiaries sums not exceeding £30 million.
In April last year my right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton (Sir H. Wilson) announced the Government's acceptance of the Ryder Report as a basis for future policy towards British Leyland. The report outlined a programme of action by which the Ryder team believed it was possible for British Leyland to be restored to viability and full international competitiveness.
There was a great deal to be done. The Ryder team found that there was a large backlog of investment, not only on the cars side of the business but equally in the more profitable truck and bus division. The team's conclusion was that the programme that was needed to put matters right would cost a great deal and would take seven years. The size of the decision facing the Government was recognised on all sides of the House. Although there were many who tried to suggest that there were cheaper solutions available to the Government, the Ryder team set its face against half measures which would repeat past mistakes. I remain convinced that that was right.
During the first year there have been important achievements. The reorganisation of British Leyland was effected quickly and smoothly. All the car operations have been brought together under a single management structure, with a large degree of autonomy for the car group as a whole. A new and much clearer responsibility has been given to Leyland International to exploit all profitable opportunities for sales overseas. The other groups also have been made more responsible for their own planning and for making profits.
It is difficult for those not closely concerned with the company to appreciate

the magnitude or the significance of the reorganisation that has taken place. But the right organisation on a stable basis lays the foundation on which future achievements will rest.
Perhaps even more important than the reorganisation of management has been the successful introduction of a radical new structure for participation by the work force in the affairs of the company. A great amount of effort has gone into launching this great step forward. In fact, an unparalleled amount of effort has gone into the worker participation scheme.
I have had the opportunity during the past few weeks of speaking to senior representatives of the work force on the joint management councils of both Leyland Cars and Leyland Truck and Bus, and I have found and been most impressed by the enthusiasm of those who are participating in the scheme. They recognise as much as anyone the crucial importance to British Leyland's future of the work force and its attitudes, and they tell me that this is already widely recognised by the vast majority of those who now work in British Leyland.
But, of course, a great deal remains to be done by way of building upon the success so far in establishing and operating the new machinery. I am confident that there is a great deal of will on both sides in British Leyland to make sure that this work is carried through effectively.
The achievements of the first year have not been confined to laying the organisational foundations for the future. Much more has been done than that. But the market for cars—though not for trucks and buses—has expanded a good deal, and certainly more rapidly than some people expected last September.
Against that background, Leyland Cars has increased its rate of production by nearly one-third from October last year to May this year, and, associated with this, the National Enterprise Board has said that there has been a 24 per cent. increase in productivity as measured in terms of output per man. Impressive as these increases are, however, they have not been sufficient to enable British Leyland fully to catch up with demand in the domestic market. This is partly


because British Leyland has refused to take the easy option of diverting export sales to the home market. It has stuck to the long-term view that export markets must maintain their priority if confidence is to be built up overseas and if the fairly ambitious targets for improved penetration in Western Europe are to be realised.
The unexpectedly rapid expansion of the market has been a factor in the continuing high level of imports and in Leyland Cars' poor market share performance during recent months. But the performance since April has been affected also by the unfortunate events of late March and early April, when several strikes occurred in toolroom areas, mainly over issues connected with wage differentials. Leyland cannot afford a repetition of disputes like these, and progress in industrial relations will continue to be crucial.
However, despite these troubles the NEB's summary report which I have made available to the House shows that there has been an improvement in the industrial disputes record at British Leyland over the year. The number of days lost has been reduced to around 60 per cent. of the previous year's figures.
These various improvements have also led to a big rise in exports—44 per cent. by value in the first half of 1976 and over 10 per cent. in unit terms—over the equivalent period last year. In the highly competitive American market, British Leyland has done especially well in increasing sales to the highest level since the corporation was formed.
Even against the background of the general increase in exports of the motor industry, British Leyland's performance has been outstanding. There have been some very important developments in the area of new models. I need not go over them in detail, because the details are familiar to the House. First, there is the new Princess. The TR7 sports car, which has been a great success in the United States of America, has now been introduced to the United Kingdom and Europe. There are the new Jaguar XJS and, most recently, the new Rover 3500. British Leyland believes that it has great export potential, particularly in Europe, and I am sure that this will prove to be the case.
Already, in the first half of this year, British Leyland has turned in a modest profit, compared with a substantial loss last year. As I said in the Written Answer I gave two weeks ago, I endorse the National Enterprise Board's conclusion that the performance so far this year justifies the injection of the first tranche of loan finance of £100 million as planned.
As the House knows, the NEB has also reviewed British Leyland's forward plans and has reported to me on them. It has not been possible to disclose very much of these plans. I know that in some respects the House still feels that perhaps we could have disclosed more. The hon. Members for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) and Bridgwater (Mr. King) came to see me and asked for additional information. I have written to the hon. Member for Henley, and a copy of the letter has been made available in the Library. I think that we have gone a great way to satisfy the demands that have been made.
I know that the House will realise that it is not possible to disclose every piece of information that perhaps some hon. Members would require, because of commercial confidentiality. It would be entirely wrong if a largely State-owned enterprise were handicapped in relation to its competitors by being obliged to make public sensitive commercial information.
The broad direction of British Leyland's future plans—with their emphasis on rationalisation of products and facilities—has been made quite clear in the summary version of the NEB's report. The NEB, having examined these plans in some detail, has concluded that they are consistent with the Ryder strategy and provide the basis for the achievement of a sound and viable company. The NEB has also said that the financial forecast remains broadly the same as at the time of the Ryder Report, and—of particular concern to the House—the requirement from external sources remains unchanged.
The NEB has pointed out that substantial commitments will need to be undertaken as new projects are begun. Clearly it would make no sense at all to begin these projects unless the firm intention was there to see them through. Equally, however, both the Government and the NEB must be sure that, before the financial commitments inherent in


major projects are accepted, there will be some kind of assurance that the productivity needed to make a success of the investment will be forthcoming.
The NEB has therefore agreed with British Leyland that major capital expenditure programmes should be submitted to the NEB, whose approval will be conditional upon the acceptance by representatives of the work force of the need for certain levels of productivity improvement to ensure that the investment is worth while. I attach great importance to this procedure. The House will recognise that its successful operation will place a heavy obligation on both sides involved in the participation system to ensure that it continues to work and develop constructively.
No one should underestimate the size of the task—I do not think anyone does—of improving productivity and working practices sufficiently to bring the United Kingdom car industry up to the level of some of its foreign counterparts with which it must compete both at home and abroad. It is essential that all those on whom a new project will depend can sit around a table in a collaborative and co-operative spirit to ensure that the necessary action is taken so that a new model programme can compete not only in terms of design and appeal but in terms of cost.
In carrying through the participation scheme to its logical conclusion, the proper involvement of the work force in the company's future planning is essential That, to a great extent is the key to the future success of the company.
As regards the terms of the loan, the period will be 20 years as envisaged in the Ryder Report. The interest rate will be commercial and, in accordance with the draft guidelines for the NEB, not less than that paid by commercial firms of the highest standing. There will be several drawings down from the total loan as it is advanced, and I cannot predict the precise rate that will apply at the time. I can say, however, that the formula being adopted would mean that if British Leyland were to draw down funds today the rate would be 15⅞ per cent. If National Loan Fund rates move upward or downward before the loan is drawn, the rate for British Leyland will move correspondingly.
We have charged the NEB with the task of making sure that the broad strategy is well considered and in line with the objectives of declared Government policy and with keeping a watch on the progress being made by the company and satisfying itself that the management is effective. Our concern is to work for the success of British Leyland so that in future years we can point to a powerful and fully competitive wholly British company making a vital contribution to our international trade and to the economy generally.
With those introductory remarks I ask the House to approve the proposed advance of £30 million under the Industry Act 1972.

11.23 p.m.

Mr. Michael Heseltine: The issues that I want to raise are of general application although they have their foundation in the motion that the Secretary of State has moved.
When the Government first adopted the Ryder strategy and introduced in the House the various measures that were necessary to implement it, our principal concern was that in reality, although we were promised endless monitoring, full accountability and all the other words that are traditionally associated with Government intervention, when the initial decision was taken by the House any real accountability or monitoring would turn out to be a fiction and that whenever the Government came back for further funds we should be provided with wholly inadequate information too late and of such a superficial nature that no real judgment could be made. Those were the critical issues upon which we took our decision to oppose the precise form of the Government scheme as introduced.
There was no significant disagreement in the House that some form of rescue for British Leyland was necessary. All parties took the view that it was necessary to move in that direction, although there was considerable disagreement as to the form of the rescue that was necessary. The speech that I made in an early debate on the matter made it clear that Conservatives were interested in the precise form of the scheme. We wished to be sure that the purpose of the Government's intervention was to move towards a viable entity as rapidly as possible. That was


the tenor of the speech I made at this Dispatch Box at the earliest possible moment when this matter was debated. I put that on record. Indeed, it is in the columns of Hansard for all to see.
My concern was that when the Government came along with their scheme it might represent the most expensive commitment on offer in any of the schemes and would involve a degree of public money out of accord with the realistic needs of the company in the circumstances. I was concerned lest public accountability would effectively be nonexistent.
When I read the summary of the National Enterprise Board report presented to the House by the Secretary of State for Industry, my worst fears were confirmed. That report, dated June 1976, does not begin to answer the legitimate requirements of this House if any form of monitoring or accountability is to take place. This is the only point I wish to make tonight. For all that the Secretary of State said, and for all the speeches that will be made in this debate, not one of us is in a position to make an informed judgment of whether British Leyland is making progress.
This is not an attack on British Leyland. I do not see the internal documents prepared by the NEB for the Department of Industry and I cannot know who bears the responsibility for this situation. However, I believe that to provide information as scant as that which was included in the summary of the NEB report must be unfair to the best interests of British Leyland.
Everybody accepts that British Leyland and its component parts is at the centre of the British manufacturing industry. That is not in dispute, and British Leyland is of real moment to the manufacturing capability of this country. Therefore, the need must be to provide the correct amount of information on which proper confidence can be based. My criticism is that this has not happened. The standards of accountability embodied in the report presented to Parliament would begin to satisfy the raising of funds in any circumstances other than those where the Government have been involved through intervention.
The people who gain by this process are not British Leyland, because one is

dealing with conjecture and rumour, and industry does not gain because we can make no informed decisions. The people who gain are those who operate under a cloak of secrecy behind closed doors, without proper accountability.
We remember the conclusions of the all-party Select Committee investigation into Chrysler. The conclusions of hon. Members on both sides of the House who examined the Chrysler rescue was that decisions were ill-informed, taken at speed, and made in conditions where the right decisions were difficult to reach.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: What kind of information does the hon. Gentleman think that a Conservative Government would be likely to make available? Is there not a real issue on the question of commercial secrecy in relation to other manufacturers?

Mr. Heseltine: There is a very real issue of commercial secrecy, and I shall come shortly to my proposals as to how the House should deal with the issues that the hon. Gentleman raises. They are central not only to this issue because increasingly in the whole of the industrialised nationalised sector, and where there is State intervention in the private sector, we are facing these precise issues.
I do not wish to attribute any significant responsibility to the Secretary of State for Industry for this report, because the report he produced was typical of the sort of parliamentary accountability to which the House has become accustomed and which the House should never have been prepared to tolerate, if I may say so.
The fact that in case after case we have been prepared historically to accept information of as trivial a nature as this report is one of the reasons for the machine taking power away from the House. We have accepted a quality of information which is quite unacceptable in normal outside terms. Therefore, we have diminished our ability to influence events by having a proper discussion based on the real facts. It is true that the Secretary of State for Industry's summary of the National Enterprise Board's report is typical of the standard of information which the House has accepted from both Conservative and Labour Governments. This is not a party point.
As Opposition spokesman, I was faced with a decision as to what attitude I would take from the Front Bench. The normal response, from whichever party is in Opposition, is to come to the Dispatch Box and to pursue the more extreme rumours, the more extreme speculation, in order to cast the maximum doubt on the Government's policy. Hon. Members know what has gone on in the House from time immemorial, and incomparable damage has been done to the country's industry by this behaviour.
The question that confronted me was how I should deal with that situation. I decided, with my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King), to go to the Secretary of State for Industry and put to him this precise dilemma. In the privacy of our conversation I listed to him the areas of doubt which I had about the summary of the National Enterprise Board's report. I followed that with a letter, which was made public, outlining some dozen particular areas where I thought that the information could have been adequately provided without in any sense affecting commercial confidentiality. In other words, I was dealing very largely with matters which were historical.
If I had not been involved, as many have been, with the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Bill last week and with public expenditure yesterday, I could have devoted two or three days to digging things out of the Library, finding clippings and putting the figures together into a proper report. That would have been an alternative before me.
But I put my questions to the Secretary of State for Industry in a letter which is nearly as long as the original summary which he published to Parliament, which he made available to me today and a copy of which is in the Library. He dealt in considerable detail with some of the points that I raised, and I thank him publicly for that. [HON. MEMBERS: "Rubbish."] The Secretary of State for Industry did not believe it was rubbish. The letter is in the Library, and there is no hint in the Secretary of States reply to me that the questions I was asking were a lot of rubbish. The whole tenor of the Secretary of State's reply is that he was trying to deal with legitimate points which I had tried to raise.

Mr. Michael English: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that much more information is published in the United States than in Britain, just as much more is published in Britain than in Europe. Would the hon. Gentleman say that he is prepared to have his question answered in respect of all companies manufacturing in or exporting to the United Kingdom?

Mr. Heseltine: I do not want to run away from the question, but I am dealing with areas where public accountability—because taxpayers' resources are deployed—is at stake. [HON. MEMBERS: "What about subsidies?"] If we are to talk about subsidies, there is a great deal of similarity between the argument I am advancing and the case that would apply there.

Mr. Tim Sainsbury: Will my hon. Friend tell us whether the sort of information for which he is asking is the sort of information that any private sector company seeking to obtain finance from the Stock Exchange would be required to produce?

Mr. Heseltine: I am very sorry; I had not realised that that was the point. My hon. Friend has put the question in a different way, which has enabled me to understand it more clearly.
In raising funds there are tight rules, covering the widest historical detail, about the activities of a company which have to be followed before it can ask the public for funds. It is precisely that point that is at the back of my concern —that when this company and a whole range of other public sector companies ask for funds they do not have to comply with the standards that are mandatory in the private sector.

Mr. English: The hon. Member would not mind if this information were required of all companies manufacturing in or exporting to the United Kingdom.

Mr. Heseltine: I think that the hon. Gentleman and I are reaching agreement. I would like to see the standards that are applied to the private sector applied also to the public sector. That is the issue.

Mr. Geoffrey Robinson: On the very point of the request for information, in the light of


the hon. Member's concern, which seems rather meretricious, that there should be an end to the catalogue of charge and counter-charge and ill-informed debate, if he was concerned to have a well-informed debate why, in advance of receiving the replies from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry, did he make the headline-seeking, ill-informed and misleading charges that he made in his speech?

Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Member is being less than fair to the point I am trying to make. I can explain exactly why I did what I did.
I went to see the Secretary of State for Industry and put to him the questions embodied in my letter. I then released a copy of my letter to the national Press, having explained to the Secretary of State that I intended to do that. It was the intention, when I saw the right hon. Gentleman, for his replies also to be released to the national Press late last week. I make no complaint that he was not able to release his replies then, because my questions were lengthy and he wanted to deal with them properly. But the reason for releasing my questions and —I hoped coincidentally—the Secretary of State's replies was precisely that I wanted my questions and his replies to be scrutinised in public by the informed, opinion-making Press of this country, so that there should be an informed debate in public in anticipation of this debate. [Interruption.] I have no doubt that the hon. Member will be able to make a speech in the debate. I am trying to explain exactly what I had in mind, because I believe that there is a fundamental issue at stake for the House of Commons, an issue that I am concerned to advance.
The Secretary of State, in reply to me, made a conscientious effort to deal in traditional terms with many of the points I had raised, but the fact is that he was not able—this is a source of sadness to me, not a source of recrimination—to provide in tabular form the statistical information and historically comparable information of the sort that any private sector company trying to raise funds would be compelled to provide. That is the sort of information that the House should insist on and has a right to obtain in circumstances of the sort that we are dealing with tonight.
I have to say that the National Enterprise Board's report, as published to this House—I do not know whether it is the fault of the board or of the Department of Industry—is a wholly inadequate document. It is a farce of public accountability, and it is this particular charge which should concern the House tonight. It is no basis upon which any hon. Member should make a genuine speech in deciding whether we should spend £30 million, £70 million, £100 million or whatever more it might be on British Leyland. There is no factual basis in the evidence put before the House which leads to the spending of one penny, and no company in the private sector would be able to get away with this. If such a company tried it, the first people to complain—legitimately and rightly—would be hon. Members below the Gangway.
The hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) asked me what would I do about it. I intend to write to my right hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann), who is Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, and the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Boyden), who is Chairman of the Committee on Public Expenditure, and draw their attention to the original letter which I wrote to the Secretary of State for Industry and to the reply which he has made available to me tonight.
I shall ask them to find a method of achieving two objectives. First, I shall ask them to find some kind of framework or to provide guidelines with which information should conform when the House is asked to approve public money for any industry, public or private. Secondly, I shall ask them to find a method by which that information is produced sufficiently in advance so that the House can have a meaningful dialogue.
Having said that, I am not in a position now to make a meaningful or objective survey of whether this money should be forthcoming for British Leyland. Et is now 11.45 p.m., and the vast body of hon. Members has gone home. We cannot object to this motion in practice because these funds are needed before the House reassembles after the recess. Therefore, there is no question of our voting against the motion tonight.


Nevertheless, the House has not done its job.
Although no attempt will be made to oppose the motion, the Government should make every effort to see that the conditions of public accountability are of a different quality from those we have seen tonight.

11.43 p.m.

Mr. Geoffrey Robinson: I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute to this debate tonight. I shall concentrate on the letter referred to by the hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine). He tried to wriggle around the point in which I intervened in his speech. If he were genuine in his concern to avoid an unproductive and ill-informed debate, he would have asked his questions but before coming out with his statements and assertions, ill-informed, misleading and damaging as they were, he would have waited for the replies, some of which give lie to what he has said.
Who, with any experience at all of manufacturing industry, would put down a question in all seriousness, given a company as diverse and of the size and complexity of British Leyland, asking the Secretary of State why the target return of 19·6 per cent. in 1981–2 had become 19·1 per cent. in 1983? How fatuously irrelevant can one get by way of a question? [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] Because there is no meaningful answer to that question, given the size and complexity of British Leyland's operations. If the hon. Member would care to meet me outside when I have more time, I shall give him an elementary lesson in accounting, both cost and financial. I do not have time to go into it now—

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Robinson: I shall not give way. I know that other hon. Members are as ignorant on this matter as the hon. Member for Henley.
But let us come to the more serious charge, not about the irrelevance of the hon. Members' questions but of his inaccuracy. Let us deal with his allegation that British Leyland was planning to double its output to 25,000

units a week by the end of the year. I invite him to say what was the basis for saying, at the time he said it, that British Leyland was planning to double its vehicle output by the end of the year. What was the basis of his deduction from that misleading statement that this amounted to a market penetration of 45 per cent?

Mr. Heseltine: I think I can explain that to the hon. Gentleman. If one takes 25,000 vehicles per week and multiplies that by 47 weeks, one arrives at a certain figure. If one deducts from that figure about 3,000 vehicles a week for export, over and above the present total, one is left with another figure. If that figure is related to the projected home market for 1977, which is 1.4 million vehicles, one arrives at a penetration of 45 per cent., assuming that all the cars are sold. That seemed excessive.

Mr. Robinson: I asked what was the basis for doubling the projection by the end of this year. The hon. Gentleman knows that at the time he made that statement British Leyland was already producing, and had been for the previous two months, 18,200 cars a week. A move from there to 25,000 is not a doubling of production.
Let us consider the hon. Gentleman's figures on exports. If one takes the trend of an increase of 10 to 11 per cent., downrated by a projection which I would put at 1,000 a week against the 25,000 production figure, that is a very good achievement, even at that rate. On that basis the hon. Gentleman will find a penetration of around 35 per cent. by the end of the year which I believe too be ambitious—probably too ambitious—but which is well worth British Leyland going for.
That was not the worst of the hon. Gentleman's speech. We saw the hon. Gentleman's pathological hunger for publicity, for the cheap headline, however damaging that may be to the British motor industry, in his handling of the strike figures. I shall not invite the hon. Gentleman on this occasion to explain why he put them on a different basis from the basis used by the Department of Employment Gazette, to which his comparison referred so misleadingly and inaccurately. We know that he wanted cheap publicity. We can forgive and


forget his action on that score, but we cannot forgive or forget the damage he does to the British industry, posing as he does as one concerned about it, when he says that the figure represents 20 per cent. of all strikes in British industry. The hon. Gentleman knows full well that it does not. That sort of incompetence and his irresponsibility disqualify him from sitting on the Opposition Front Bench.
That is probably enough of the hon. Member for Henley. We need no help from him to know that we have severe problems. There are many disappointments in the performance of British Leyland. I think that these can be summed up under three headings. There are present in the Gallery certain senior representatives of British Leyland and Leyland Cars. I think that they share my concern on the three points I am about to make.
First, there has been a catastrophic drop from 32 per cent. to 27 per cent. of the home market share. The priority given to exports against the home market has been overdone. That home market share is of critical importance to the profitability and viability of Leyland Cars and it will be won back only at considerable cost and effort.
The second fairly major disappointment in the year to date—the figures I am using are a comparison of the year before the reorganisation following the Ryder Report with the year to June 1976—has been the fact that production has dropped from about 1 million cars to 700,000. The drop in home market penetration is a consequence of that fact. It is a disappointing and worrying failure on the part of British Leyland since reorganisation. The third matter for concern—though the element of shortfall is less—has been the drop in European penetration from 2·5 per cent. to 2·2 per cent. in the period to which I have referred.
These are all critical areas of relative failure on the part of British Leyland in the year to date since reorganisation. But let us be clear: a year is not a long time when dealing with a product which takes five years to develop before it can be put on the market and which incorporates the best part of 180,000 employees and controls the assets and complexity of operations of British Leyland.
There is a need for information which would be of use to hon. Members in debating these matters on the Floor of the House. It is rather different for hon. Members on Select Committees where much more is required. But I have no intention of bombarding my right hon. Friend with seven pages of requests for information for the purposes of debate on the Floor of the House. Most hon. Members must necessarily follow the performance of British Leyland in a summarised form, and certain information, provided quarterly on an ongoing basis, would show the trends of performance of Leyland Cars.
Could the Government give us the actual production in units, the average number of employees of Leyland Cars over the period in question, the market shares in the United Kingdom and Europe and of the share of imports in North America, and, lastly and most importantly, a statement of source and application of funds? For hon. Members who have any understanding of manufacturing industry—and many of my hon. Friends have—this information would give us all we need to know to see whether the trends within Leyland Cars are progressing in these critical areas.
If the trends are not improving, it is up to the NEB and the board of British Leyland to take the appropriate action, by management changes, to see that the ambitious targets set by the NEB and on which their reputations stand are met. That is accountability, an essential part within industry and between Parliament and industry. It is only in so far as the House is able to see the NEB exercising its responsibilities in that respect that we can have any effective say in the accountability of funds used for British Leyland.
I wish briefly to mention two other points. The first concerns cash flow. Many of us feel that the total of £2,800 million over the period stated is unlikely to be spent. The company simply does not have the technical, manufacturing and engineering resources to spend that money. From the NEB report it is clear that we still envisage the total commitment of £1,400 million of external funds. Does that mean that the £1,400 million from internally generated sources is not expected in its entirety to he generated?
The second point relates to the position of the Special Products Group. Not sufficient attention has been paid in the NEB report to the considerable progress that has been made by the Special Products Group. I am rather concerned at the thought that the internally generated cash of the Special Products Group is to be put into the other activities of British Leyland. I say that because the Special Products Group is in two very large and important growth areas in mechanical engineering. It is in construction equipment and fork-lift trucks. In both those areas it should be set the task by the NEB of becoming a major international force. To do that it will need not less of its own internally generated funds; it will need more. On that point, too, I should like a specific reply. Can we not build on the success here?
Lastly, I say one thing that I have said in the House and outside it on many occasions. The whole concept of tying the availability of finance to an improvement in industrial relations and an improvement in other aspects of manufacturing and sales performance at British Leyland is, in the way in which money is spent and committed, inherently unworkable. A one-sided minatory posture of that kind, whether to management or men—and it will be seen as such—will not work.
What the industry needs, apart from a period of well-deserved respite from the irresponsibility of Opposition parties, is leadership. It needs managerial competence and managerial integrity. That is what we should all be looking for in its future progress, which is vital to the progress of the economy over the next few years and with which the report deals.

11.58 p.m.

Mr. Hal Miller: I shall not attempt to take up the remarks of the hon. Member for Coventry, North-West (Mr. Robinson), whose contribution will have disappointed the House when much might have been expected of his previous experience. The arrogance and lack of concern about accountability at the beginning of his remarks will have explained the difficulty that he had in controlling his budget at

Jaguar Motors and may explain his leaving the company.

Mr. Robinson: It can be confirmed that the company with which I was concerned at British Leyland exceeded its budget. In that respect I plead guilty to some measure of lack of control.

Mr. Miller: I well understand the hon. Gentleman admitting that he exceeded his authority to spend money.
The House should be grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) for the manner in which he posed the very real problems that we face in discussing the accountability of National Enterprise Board companies to the House and how we in this place should exercise our responsibility for controlling the public expenditure for which we have to raise the taxes.
I shall not go into the current position of the motor car industry in this country as time is now very short. However, I want to take up one or two necessary parts of the control that needs to be exercised on public expenditure in nationalised industries and NEB companies. I want first to refer to the need for some criteria of performance and the possibility of measuring performance against these criteria, on which decisions could then be taken to release further tranches of public money.
On 24th April 1975, the then Prime Minister informed the House that Leyland would be required
to put forward annual business plans before further funds are provided covering improvement in industrial relations and producivity and putting forward precise investment and operating programmes for specific Government approval … The aim will be to satisfy the criteria for the provision of public funds on such a vast scale while at the same time allowing the company to operate on an effective commercial basis ".—[Official Report, 24th April, 1975; Vol. 890, c. 1746.]
It is disturbing to read in the NEB's report on British Leyland to date that it is only now thinking of identifying the criteria which need to be met before further tranches of public money are made available.
We have the right to ask what has happened in the past 18 months or so to those criteria and what steps the Government have taken to assist in establishing what those criteria should be. In my correspondence with the Department of


Employment, I have not been able to discover any initiative taken in that Department to that end.
The question of criteria also appears in the Secretary of State's Department's comments on the report of the Trade and Industry Sub-Committee, which says in its comments in the annexe to Cmnd. 6377:
The Government fully accept the importance of having clear and consistent criteria … An early task of the National Enterprise Board will be to ensure that ways of measuring progress and identifying specific targets of achievement … are discussed between BL and the unions and agreed with the Government. These will subsequently provide the basis on which the Government will decide whether to release furher tranches of finance.
I do not believe that those conditions have been met tonight.
The House has been placed in an impossible position, as the Trade and Industry Sub-Committee itself recognised would be the case when it doubted
whether the benchmark condition can mean very much.
It said that in its opinion the Government would have no control over productivity and efficiency and that the release of the first tranche would inevitably commit the further sums.
We therefore need an answer about whether these benchmarks and criteria have yet been established in a meaningful way and why further sums of money are likely to be called upon before the House has been satisfied. We shall not have an opportunity, apparently, of discussing this again until this time 12 months, although we are told in the NEB's report that up to another £400 million will be released before we have a chance to discuss it again—and even then perhaps in a form which will not afford the House an opportunity truly to discuss it. I should like an assurance that there will be a further opportunity to discuss these matters before those sums are released.
On the question of strategy and the guidelines to the company, in their own White Paper the Government talked about the need to seek an agreement on company plans for improving productivity, quality, continuity and efficiency. In their guidelines to the NEB they are on the same track when they talk about Government oversight being exercised as far as possible through long-term

strategies. That is in the NEB guideline published in March 1976.
The Trade and Industry Sub-Committee pointed out that the House had never had any clear indication whether the Government fully accepted the strategy in the Ryder Report or whether there was any critical examination of that strategy. In particular, I wish to refer to the question of model policy and the possibility of replacing the Mini or the alternative of replacing the Marina and Triumph ranges. I realise that some of these matters are sensitive, but we have the right to know the answer to the questions about a new small car.
The right hon. Gentleman will be aware of recent discussion in the Economist and the Financial Times about the competition to be expected from the Ford Fiesta and about the huge volumes. that British Leyland's competitors can turn out in the small car range—up to 500,000 each by the four main competitors. It is unlikely that British Leyland will be producing a Mini replacement in that volume. Therefore, how is British Leyland to be competitive? Is it necessary for the company to cover the whole range of models, at any rate at this stage? We have had no clear indication of the strategy that should be followed and whether it has been subjected to critical examination by the Government. That is the second point on which we are owed an answer if we are to exercise any effective control over public expenditure.
The third point is the question of releasing money, in this tranche £100 million, when in the NEB's report it is admitted that several times that amount will have to be spent in the next 12 months, possibly without an opportunity to pass on it. What is that £100 million for? We have had no statement about whether it is to go into general revenue for general expenditure, whether it is to go to the Special Products Division, whether it is for capital investment in the new car, whether it is part of a programme to start it off, or what. We should have a clear statement of what that £100 million is to be used for and whether it is part of a larger sum for one specific purpose or for more than one purpose. I yesterday asked the right hon. Gentleman whether it formed Dart of


a new model policy or was part of general expenditure. I also asked him to identify what the sum was for.
Fourthly, in all the speeches I have made on the subject I have spoken of the need for a commitment from the Government, management and men to the success of British Leyland. Tonight we need to examine the Government's commitment. We should take their own words from the recent tripartite declaration, which the Minister proudly announced to the House, that 10 steps have been agreed to achieve a substantial and internationally competitive motor industry, with a new approach requiring commitment by all parties, and that the Government should be more consistent than in the past in seeking to achieve stability in taxation, credit and other instruments.
How are we to square that with the Government's record on the proposals to tax company cars; with the report, which the right hon. Gentleman denied but which the Secretary of State for the Environment confirmed two days later, that the proposal to scrap the road fund licence and replace it by a tax on petrol was still under active consideration; and with the recent increase in national insurance contributions imposed by the Chancellor? What is the Government's commitment to a stable economic and fiscal environment for the motor industry?
We find ourselves in a new ball park in trying to have a serious discussion about the way in which accountability of great public companies financed by public money is to be exercised. We have not had sufficient information on which to form that judgment. Perhaps we need to devise new procedures to carry out our duty to our constituents satisfactorily. We must be satisfied that there are criteria. We need to be satisfied about the strategy being followed, about the destination and extent of the funds committed, and about the Government's commitment and determination to carry out their own policy.

12.10 a.m.

Mr. J. W. Rooker: There has been disappointment about the performance of British Leyland, not least among the work force. Among my constituents the greatest dis-

appointment is that the management they are working for today is the same management as they were working for two years ago. At the end of the day, Lord Ryder will probably have to move in and do the job himself. Lord Ryder's reputation hangs on the success of British Leyland, and that would be a sure-fire way of getting action, because he would not want his reputation to be torn to shreds.
The workers want British Leyland to be a success and my hon. Friends want it to be a success, but there is every indication that Opposition Members do not want it to be a success. [HON. MEMBERS: "Rubbish."] If it were not for my hon. Friends the British Leyland workers would not have jobs. The Opposition, including the Liberal Party, have consistently voted against any measures for assisting British Leyland.
Whatever aspirations we may have for British Leyland will fall to pieces because of the rigor mortis caused by the pay policy proposed by the Government and the TUC. There is every indication that last year's troubles in the company will be repeated this year. We cannot ignore them and expect them to go away. The Engineer pointed out in May that in 1974 the Government gave enormous wage increases to certain groups of workers—nurses and teachers, who we all agree are special cases—and what is needed is a reorganisation of payment schemes. British Leyland requires the restoration of bargaining with the unions.
The company claims that many other important reforms are needed which cannot be undertaken because of the pay policy. The Financial Times reported that Leyland was snookered by the new pay policy and that management, accompanied by Harry Urwin, the General Secretary of the Transport and General Workers Union, and a member of the NEB had been to see the Government to try to get some relaxation. I have repeatedly asked that companies controlled by the NEB should be given some dispensation in the national interest. Those companies are tightly defined.
The Government will have to move some way before the end of the year, otherwise, although British Leyland will make grandiose plans for the future the work force will see no changes and no action. In the end the company will blow


up and we shall be debating in this place what went wrong. The Government have been repeatedly warned by shop stewards, workers, my hon. Friends and hon. Gentlemen opposite that that is what will happen unless changes are made.
The workers at the Castle Bromwich factory—in which I worked many years ago—are frustrated because of the order placed in Japan for a set of tools to manufacture the new Rover for production in South Africa. The Japanese toolmakers cannot get the tools right for the roof panel of the car. They sent to the Castle Bromwich factory asking to see the test jigs because they could not get the roof panel right, but my constituents will not release those test jigs to Japan. They will have gone back to work yesterday, after the fortnight, and that will bottle up into a dispute which could have been avoided because the tools could have been manufactured in this country in the first place.
The last point that I wish to raise concerns the interchange of letters between the two Front Benches. The hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) said go out and read them. I hope he will accept that some of us have already read them. I wish to refer to two aspects which have already been referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry. North-West (Mr. Robinson). but not in detail.
The hon. Member for Henley said that we need more information. Yet the Opposition parties are paid something like £250,000 out of public funds for research assistants which, I assume, goes to Conservative Central Office in the hon. Gentleman's case. While I agree that the information contained in the NEB summary is not good enough, nevertheless the research assistants could not make head or tail of that information. Any research assistant worth his salt will realise that the Department of Employment's strike figures do not apply to layoffs in other factories because of a shortage of parts related to a strike in factory A. The Department does not count that as part of the 2 million man-days lost between October last year and May this year, according to the national figures. The hon. Member for Henley quoted 400,000 man-days lost in British Leyland and said that that was 20 per cent. of the total figure. But the NEB figures

refer not only to strikes but to those laid off as a result of a strike.
The Department of Employment does not use those statistics. The hon. Member for Henley said that the number of days lost in Leyland accounted for 20 per cent. of those lost to the economy as a whole, whereas they are just under 7 per cent. I accept that British Leyland does not employ 7 per cent. of the industrial workers in this country. While 7 per cent. is disgraceful and catastrophic for the company, it is considerably less than the 20 per cent. mentioned by the hon. Member for Henley.
The other point I wish to raise, because it is raised on page 8 of the Press release of the hon. Gentleman's letter from Conservative Central Office, relates to the employee participation system which the hon. Member for Henley says is not making much progress. I accept that, and so do my constituents. But the employee participation system at British Leyland is not intended to replace collective bargaining. That is the implication of the hon. Gentleman's letter, which was refuted in very polite language by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in a sentence on page 9 of his letter, when he said:
The participation arrangements do not cover the collective bargaining matters you mention.
On those two simple matters of the structure of the participation and the interpretation of the strike statistics, any research assistant could have worked those two things out. They were well known.
The hon. Member for Henley does not have to do his own researches. I suspect that he did not draft every sentence of his own letter. If he has to do his own researches, he ought not to have to do so because he is wasting public expenditure which is paid over to the Opposition parties.

Mr. Heseltine: Surely the essence of the point I would plead, and which I hope the hon. Gentleman will accept, is that the facts should be available independently through the monitoring process upon which Parliament can reach a judgment. It is not sufficient for hon. Members, even the Opposition Front Bench, to have to find the evidence from their own researches. The important thing is that every hon. Gentleman should


have it because the monitoring procedure set up by the Government should ensure that they get it.

Mr. Rooker: One of my arguments against research assistants for hon. Members in this place is that it would make the idle more idle still. One only has to ask in the Library. All the information is collected by public servants. I do not want more public expenditure on more civil servants collecting the same statistics to provide for hon. Members opposite.
The fact is that the statistics are there. All the information has already been given by the NEB. It is the hon. Gentleman's interpretation that is wrong. As I have pointed out, any meagre research assistant in the central office would have known this. The Department of Employment does not publish its monthly statistics for nothing. There are hundreds of statistics and minutiae, and all of it is useful if one looks at it. If one does not look at it, one cannot make assumptions and expect to be proved correct on them. It is fatuous. Most of the hon. Gentleman's letter is shown to be false on the basis of his incorrect assertions and references to the NEB's report.
I appeal to my right hon. Friend not to start giving us more information of the kind for which the hon. Gentleman asks. What we need is more fresh information. We do not want the same information as is already available to hon. Members.
I shall take up no more time. My main point is on the pay policy. Things will go wrong and will blow up unless something is changed in that respect for British Leyland.

12.20 a.m.

Mr. Michael Grylls: In the few minutes left to us I shall not say much about the speech of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker), although I think that his point about pay differentials is closely relevant. There is a problem here, which he understands, and I believe that he has made an important observation.
I cannot be so generous to the hon. Member for Coventry, North-West (Mr. Robinson). He is quite wrong to tell us that we ought not to question the rate of return on investment of British Leyland. That is what we are here for: it

is our business to question it. The hon. Gentleman says that it was wrong to question the change in the percentage from 19·6 to 19·1. There may be a perfectly reasonable explanation. All we are seeking to do, as my hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) said, is to exercise our right to ask questions and have answers.
Our main criticism, as my hon. Friend said, is that the information has not been sufficient for us in this debate. It is noteworthy that the Ryder Report ran to about 30,000 words, and the NEB summary report, which we are using for this debate, consists of only some 3,000 words. The reports which we are expected to use to make our judgments appear to grow shorter and shorter.
Why is this money being provided under the Industry Act instead of coming from the National Enterprise Board? The NEB seems to have plenty of money —£225 million in the current Estimates, and £50 million from last year. It has been buying up shares in various companies—Data Recording Instruments, Twinlock, the Anglo-Venezuelan Railway Corporation and so on—probably very good companies, and it does not appear to be short of money to spend or restricted as to where to spend it.
Why has the NEB not been directed to supply the money? In his answer to my hon. Friend's letter, the Secretary of State did not answer that. He was frank enough to agree that there was a point in saying that all the money could come from the NEB, but that is not good enough. In that case, why is it not coming from the NEB? If the Secretary of State's case is that the NEB is doing the monitoring, the NEB should use its own funds for the British Leyland operation. We need an answer on that.
What about the Secretary of State's consultation with the board of the NEB? Under Section 3(3) of the Industry Act, he must have consultation. What was the board's reaction? Did it firmly say that it would not provide more than £70 million and therefore he had to find £30 million under the Industry Act, or what was it? What was the view of the Industrial Development Advisory Board' Was it consulted? Did it think that the information given in the summary report was sufficient?
There is another matter which requires the attention of the House in the coming months when we consider the affairs of British Leyland. When will funds come from the private sector? I believe that Leyland itself, quite understandably and for genuine reasons, would wish as soon as possible to be able to go to the City, to the FFI and to the insurance companies and banks to raise some of its own money without going through the charade of having a debate such as this on inadequate information. In that way the company could prove itself, by being able to get money from the private sector instead of involuntary contributions from involuntary shareholders through the House of Commons.
I hope, therefore, that the Secretary of State will tell us when he expects—and when he expects his reports from British Leyland and the NEB to tell him—that the Leyland company will be ready to go to the market. I appreciate that the company has had only a year so far, but I am sure the House would like to see that happen, because there is a shortage of public money for all the social needs which worry us. If this call on resources can be relieved and the money can come from the private sector, so much the better.
Finally, a number of assumptions which featured prominently in the Ryder Report are a measure of whether we should give the money. The first assumption was the inflation rate, but that is now out of line. The inflation rate in 1974–75 was 22½ per cent. In the last year it has gone to 26 per cent. The interest rate assumption in the Ryder Report was 12 per cent. The Secretary of State, in his letter to my hon. Friend the Member for Henley, said that it will now be 15⅞ per cent. Therefore, that assumption seems to have gone out of the window.
We have heard a lot of talk about British Leyland's share of the market. We all hope that the dip is temporary and that it will go up to 33 per cent.
There is little time before the debate has to finish. I hope that the Secretary of State can give us the information on which we can measure the performance of British Leyland. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will reply to the question posed by my hon. Friend the Member for Henley so that the House may

have the proper information on which to make a judgment whether the money should be released.

12.27 a.m.

Mr. George Rodgers: I think that the debate is superimposed on the curious exchange of letters between my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and the hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine). I do not know whether the hon. Member for Henley was genuinely seeking information or was courting political publicity. I am convinced that the ink was hardly dry on the paper before the information was released to the Press.
There has been considerable comment about the fact that there is not sufficient accountability by British Leyland. But I am aware, as every hon. Member must be aware, that there is a greater degree of accountability within British Leyland now than there has been in the past. Had the company been exposed to investigation and accountability in the past, it would not have got into the situation that it did in recent years. If the private sector generally had been subjected to investigation and accountability, we should not have had some of the rather unsavoury exposures that we have had in recent weeks.
I am satisfied that my right hon. Friend has adequately answered all the points made in the letter to which I have referred. My few remarks tonight will be confined to the bus and truck section of BLMC, the headquarters of which is located in Leyland in my constituency and wherein a great number of my constituents are employed. There has been much comment about the extent of industrial disputes in the various documents that have been produced. When we recognise the complexities of the industry and its dependence upon outside suppliers, its record is remarkable.
When the voluntary restriction on the level of wages was introduced last year, it was recognised that there would be many cases of rough justice. In fact, as far as the bus and truck section was concerned, it was all rough and no justice. Agreements had been negotiated and made long before the cut-off date and commitments were taken on by the work force in advance of the agreed financial compensation, but the cut-off


date prevented those agreements from being honoured.
I realise that my right hon. Friend has no direct responsibilities in this area, but I hope that, when the situation is unlocked and wages can again be negotiated freely, he will bear in mind that there are those in the Leyland organisation whose legitimate entitlements and expectations were frustrated. It has been my experience that the work force in that part of the country does not indulge in industrial disputes casually—

Mr. Clement Freud: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it possible for the hon. Member for Chorley (Mr. Rodgers) to read with a little more verve?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Oscar Murton): That is entirely a matter for the hon. Member.

Mr. Rodgers: I am prepared to read in rich and varied tones, but difficulties are presented when it is necessary to complete a speech in a shorter time than one anticipated.
The turn-about in the financial fortunes of British Leyland should be warmly welcomed. Surely only the most churlish of Members would decry the progress that has already been achieved. A short time ago the company was on the edge of the precipice and the livelihoods of hundreds of thousands of people were at risk. A great deal has been accomplished since then. However, there must be constant vigilance by the NEB. We must be vigilant for the vigilantes. I support the motion.

12.31 a.m.

Mr. Tom King: I am sorry to say that this debate has combined most of the worst features of the way in which Parliament attempts to scrutinise what is a massive commitment of public money. Apart from our totally inadequate procedure, it is interesting to note—indeed, one could not help but notice—that since the opening remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) the Minister of State, the Under-Secretary of State and the PPSs have been ignoring the speeches of my hon. Friends while they have been poring through Hansard to see whether they can trip up my hon. Friend by quot

ing some of his remarks. That sort of behaviour reduces the whole thing to an utter farce. I know that we do not refer to strangers in the Gallery, but I hope that strangers were not too disappointed at the way in which Parliament scrutinises what is a vital investment procedure in a major British company.
It is interesting that criticisms have been made about the exchange of letters between my hon. Friend the Member for Henley and the Secretary of State. I add my thanks to the right hon. Gentleman for the courteous way in which he received my hon. Friend and me in discussion and for the way in which he replied to the letters. A significant matter worthy of reflection is that Labour Members have dismissed the NEB's report and directed their attention and the discussion to the matters contained my hon. Friend's letters. We can at least claim that the letters have stimulated further discussion.
There cannot be any question—if I had been in doubt about the matter, the debate would have reinforced my original view —but that the one-and-a-half-hour procedure is inadequate. I know that the Secretary of State will point out that the money comes from the Industry Act 1972, but that Act was concerned with much smaller sums. I think that the largest was slightly over £5 million, whereas we are dealing with a £100 million investment with implicit commitments for about £400 million thereafter. It is laughable that such matters have to be debated within one and a half hours, and if they are debated at this hour of the night it is a farce.
The only way in which we can continue with the present arrangements is if a massive amount of pre-debate information is provided. If there is extremely full information and communication beforehand, there might be meaningful discussion. We cannot begin to do our duty to the taxpayer or the country by tackling these matters in the present manner. British Leyland is crucial to Britain's industrial performance, and to treat it in this way is disgraceful. Above all else, Parliament should deal with these matters thoroughly but with a sense of urgency. I think that the Secretary of State is concerned about this aspect, but we must ensure that it is tackled.
The implication of the right hon. Gentleman's letter was that there would


be no debate on British Leyland money unless it came from the Industry Act. I do not know whether that is correct, and I may have misrepresented the right hon. Gentleman, but it seems to be his view that there is no reason to debate NEB money in the House. My hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove and Redditch (Mr. Miller) pointed out that it looks as though another £400 million of public money will be involved through the NEB before the House debates this issue again. If that is right, hon. Members should know that by means of this abbreviated procedure we have dealt with £500 million and the strategy for British Leyland for the next 10 or 15 years. That seems to be a quite inadequate procedure.
I hope that the overriding issue of how we can adequately discuss these matters will not be overlooked. We did not begin to have adequate discussion tonight. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will be able to give us some reassurance.

12.34 a.m.

Mr. Varley: I have only four minutes in which to reply to some of the points that have been raised. I shall try to reply with verve.
I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) was right when he said that there had been a bit of a turn-about by the Opposition. We could quote some of the speeches of the hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) that are reported in Hansard—a subject to which the hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) has referred—but we know that this will be the first occasion when the Opposition do not vote against further money going to British Leyland. It seems that they are reformed characters. I could quote certain Opposition Members chapter and verse, but it would be rather embarrassing if I were to do so. What was said at that time was very powerful—[Interruption.] When muck is thrown at us, we are expected to stand here like statesmen and take it all. However, I do not want to be provoked.
I am genuinely concerned about Parliament being kept informed and having a genuine opportunity of debating these large sums of money on the best informa

tion available. I do not concede that we have not provided the information. We have provided it in the summary of the NEB's report and in the 11-page letter I sent in response to representations.
The hon. Member for Henley said that he would write to his right hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann) and my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Boyden) about procedure. The hon. Gentleman might be interested to learn that over two months ago I invited the right hon. and hon. Members, as Chairmen of the Public Accounts and Expenditure Committees respectively, to take an interest in the NEB and its activities because of our concern about parliamentary scrutiny.
The hon. Member for Bromsgrove and Redditch (Mr. Miller) suggested that we should have given more information and thought that we should take even further opportunities to debate these matters as further money goes into British Leyland. But his hon. Friend the Member for Surrey, North-West (Mr. Grylls) takes another view. There is a report in The Times today of his letter to Lord Ryder asking why the money is not all coming from NEB funds. I think that there is a case for all the money being released to the NEB and for the board to pay it over on the basis of having been satisfied with the monitoring of British Leyland.
The hon. Gentleman also asked whether the Industrial Development Advisory Board had been consulted. The answer is in the affirmative. That body, which contains senior industrialists, has agreed the proposals we have adopted. Its members have received all the information that the Government have received on the basis of the Industry Act 1972.
Let us consider the progress made in the past year. Reorganisation of British Leyland has been carried through smoothly. British Leyland has a devoted and talented management team and its workers have done a great—

It being one and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted Business).

Question agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House authorises the National Enterprise Board, on the direction of the Secretary of State, given under Section 3 of the Industry Act 1975, to pay or undertake to pay by way of financial assistance under section 8 of the Industry Act 1972, as amended by section 22 of, and Part I of Schedule 4 to, the Industry Act 1975, in respect of a loan to British Leyland Limited or any of its subsidiaries sums not exceeding £30 million.

PROCEEDINGS OF THE HOUSE (BROADCASTING)

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Oscar Murton): Before I call the hon. Member for Bradford, North (Mr. Ford), I must inform the House that Mr. Speaker has not selected the amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English).

12.38 a.m.

Mr. Ben Ford: I beg to move,
That this House approves the recommendations in the First Report from the Joint Committee on Sound Broadcasting which relate to this House.
On 16th March the House approved, by 299 votes to 124, a motion to the effect that we should make arrangements for permanent broadcasting. That was a majority of much more than two to one. On 9th April the House resolved that it would form a Select Committee to progress these matters, and on 29th April the House resolved that a Select Committee should meet with a Committee of the Lords to consider these matters.
The Committee met very quickly after that—namely, on 4th May—and I was privileged to be chosen as Chairman of the Joint Committee. We decided, in view of the obvious desire of the House by that large majority, to push on with broadcasting and to get on quickly with the job. From that first meeting we issued a special report requesting observations from Members of Parliament, to which only one reply was received.
In this motion today we are requesting the House to authorise expenditure to enable us to construct a commentary box in the Chamber during the long Summer Recess. We are advised that this is the only opportunity available for such construction. If the work is not carried out during the recess, that will inevitably mean that it cannot be carried out until the summer of 1977, and the broadcasting of the House and the bringing of Parliament nearer to the people will be postponed for more than a year.
If the House agrees to the motion tonight, as I very much hope it will, we might be able to begin broadcasting somewhere around Whitsun next year. This, of course, is dependent upon progress in other matters. I hope that the


House will bear these remarks in mind when considering the matter and will enable us to get on with the work.

Mr. Michael English: When my hon. Friend talks of Whitsun next year, does he mean the broadcasting of the House and such of its Committees as may be newsworthy?

Mr. Ford: I do. That is my intention. I intend to refer to my hon. Friend's amendment, which was not called, later in my remarks.
The siting of the commentary box was considered very carefully by the Joint Committee. Witnesses were examined and we went over a fair amount of old ground. We then came to the conclusion that scheme 1, which refers to the southwest corner of the House—behind where I am standing—would be the most appropriate.
The broadcasting authorities have all along been most insistent that they can carry out their work in relation to broadcasting the House only from roughly a floor-level position. Hon. Members will recall that during the period of the experiment there was a temporary structure in the south-east corner which was uncomfortable to the broadcasters and caused some inconvenience to Members. But apart from that the results of the experiment were very favourable, and the broadcasters afterwards endorsed their opinion that only a position at floor level was suitable for their purposes.
It became clear that either of schemes 2 and 3, in the south-east corner of the Chamber, would produce a loss of seats to Opposition parties. The other most undesirable aspect was that it would bring the advisers forward into the Chamber and would produce disturbance to Members while other Members were seeking advice or consulting, as the case might be. Another undesirable aspect was that it would thrust the advisers out from under the Gallery more into the open Chamber, virtually bringing them into the House. We thought that that also was quite undesirable.
On the other hand, scheme 1, which refers to the south-west corner—a diagram is attached to the report—takes up a Bench which is rarely used by Members and is altogether more desirable aesthetically. I might add, for the

benefit of any aesthetes in the House at the moment, that the scheme has been approved by the Royal Fine Art Commission.

Mr. John Roper: Has the Royal Fine Art Commission given its view on the other two schemes?

Mr. Ford: Yes; it approved all three schemes.
The cost of the scheme is estimated at £38,000. This breaks down into £18,000 for the mechanical and electrical works and £20,000 for the building and civil engineering works.

Mr. Philip Whitehead: My hon. Friend would not wish to continue without admitting to the House that it is £10,000 more than the cost of scheme 2.

Mr. Ford: That is clear from the report.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Is it true that the BBC contributes nothing towards the cost? There is great discontent in Scotland at the fact that Radio Forth, Radio Clyde and BBC Scotland will have to pay for broadcasting facilities in the proposed Scottish Assembly.

Mr. Ford: The BBC is happy to provide the technical equipment.
The amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English), which has not been selected, requests an assurance that the broadcasting of the proceedings of Committees should commence at the same time as the broadcasting of the proceedings of the House. I completely agree with him. If he examines the report that we issued in connection with the broadcasting experiment earlier this year, he will see that we emphasised that we saw the broadcasting authorities and gained assurances from them that they had taken into account the broadcasting of Committees. I can assure my hon. Friend and other Members that it is my firm intention, as Chairman of the Joint Committee, that the broadcasting of Committee proceedings shall commence at the same time as the broadcasting of the proceedings of the House, subject to the wish of the Committees themselves. They will say whether or not their proceedings shall be broadcast.
We have stated the technical requirements, which are fairly minimal, for adjusting the Committee Rooms to enable broadcasting to take place, but that is subject to the House willing the means.
I believe that the Joint Committee has worked as quickly as, if not more quickly than, any Select Committee in the history of Parliament. We saw it as our bounden duty to implement the clearly-expressed desires of the House to make arrangements for permanent broadcasting.
I take this opportunity to express my thanks to my colleagues on the Committee, the staff of the Committee, who served us exceedingly well, and also the witnesses, who often came at very short notice, sometimes at only a day or two's notice, to appear before the Committee and help us with our deliberations.
I wish that this debate had taken place at an earlier date, which would have enabled us to get on with the work, but let us be thankful for small mercies. I hope that the House will endorse the Committee's First Report and approve the motion which is now before it.

12.48 a.m.

Mr. Michael English: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, North (Mr. Ford) for saying that he is committed, as is the whole House, to the broadcasting of the proceedings of Committees with those of the House.
I must express a little reservation, however, because my hon. Friend said that the broadcasting of Committees is dependent upon the House willing the means. Unfortunately, as you know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the House cannot will the means, because no Back Bench Member is capable of moving a motion that imposes a charge upon the people—in other words, expenditure—without the consent of a Minister. I therefore express the hope that the Leader of the House and the Parliamentary Secretary, who is to reply to the debate, will give the same assurances as those given by my hon. Friend and say that they are personally committed to the proceedings of Committees and of the House being broadcast at the same time.
That is the will of the House. It was stated on 16th March. As my hon. Friend said, the House decided, by an over-

whelming majority, that it wished all its proceedings to be broadcast—not in the sense that every word we say should be broadcast but in the sense that they should be capable of being broadcast and be open to be broadcast if they are newsworthy.
Sometimes proceedings in Committee are more important than proceedings on the Floor of the House, and vice versa. Unfortunately, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House has on many occasions expressed the belief that Committees detract from the Floor of the House. Nevertheless most hon. Members, particularly the Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish Members and members of Select Committees, believe that it should be possible to broadcast the proceedings of Committees.
As I understand it, that will need a small modification to a couple of Committee Rooms—a Select Committee Room and a Standing Committee Room—replacing microphones by those suitable for broadcasting, which is a much cheaper process than all the alterations that my hon. Friend has been suggesting. That is not in the motion because it is not in the report. I should like an assurance from the Minister, therefore—because only a Minister can give it—that Committees will be broadcast as the House originally wished.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Privy Council Office (Mr. William Price): May I give that assurance to my hon. Friend? I know that this is a matter which concerns him and other hon. Members. It might help to facilitate the debate if I make that clear at this stage. What I cannot do is commit the Government, the House or anybody else to any major expenditure other than what is contained in the motion. If it is as simple a technical matter as my hon. Friend says, involving two Committees—two Committee Rooms, and therefore two Committees—I suspect that it would not be beyond our wit to find a way and the means of doing that. But I cannot commit anybody to major expenditure other than is involved in the motion.

Mr. English: I entirely accept the assurance given. I wanted only the assurance that the House would not be broadcast before it was possible to broadcast its


Committees as well, that the two would be coincident.
I understand that my hon. Friend, not being a Treasury Minister, is not able to commit the Government to expenditure. What some of us were suspicious about was that there was an attempt to broadcast the House alone, deferring the broadcasting of Committees. My hon. Friend's assurance is entirely satisfactory. I accept it and I shall vote with him.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Before I call the next hon. Member to speak, I should point out that this is a very narrow debate. The Chair has been indulgent because it understood the point that the hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) wished to make. Now, however, I must ask hon. Members to confine themselves to the last sentence in the first paragraph of the First Report which contains recommendations by the Committee as to the siting and design of the commentary boxes in this Chamber.

Mr. Robert Cooke: Further to your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I hope that you will continue to be indulgent during this debate for the very good reason that there are wider implications in the somewhat narrow point that the House is being asked to discuss. Many hon. Members will wish to explore these matters before making their decision. It would make the position of hon. Members more difficult if you did not feel able to be indulgent.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Chair must listen with care and see how far the exploration goes, because we are bound by a very narrow debate on this subject.

Mr. Roper: Did your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker, refer to provision in the Ladies Gallery, which was not mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, North (Mr. Ford), as well as provision in the south-west or south-east corners of the Chamber?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The motion refers to the siting and design of commentary boxes. That is all I can tell the hon. Member.

Mr. Bob Cryer: Further to your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker, can the debate include reference to the part of the report dealing with the House of

Lords, since £30,000 for what appears to be a Victorian greenhouse is a considerable item of expenditure?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I draw the hon. Member's attention to the motion, which states specifically that it relates to this House only.

Mr. Roper: Further to what you have said, Mr. Deputy Speaker, may I ask you to reconsider your last ruling? If you look at the First Report of the Select Committee, you will see in bold type in paragraph 6 a reference to what used to be the Ladies Gallery and in bold type in paragraph 12 a reference to the commentary boxes in the south-west corner. I should have thought that provision in the Ladies Gallery was within the scope of the motion.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: If a matter is contained in the report, it is in order to discuss it. The House will understand the difficulty in which the Chair is placed. This is a narrow debate, and I hope that hon. Members will do their best to confine themselves to the main subject.

Mr. Eddie Loyden (Liverpool, Garston): Further to your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker, may I ask whether the assurances given to my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham. West (Mr. English) were intended to include Select Committees?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not a matter for the Chair.

Mr. English: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I assumed that the assurance given to me by the Minister included Select Committees.

Mr. William Price: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. That was certainly my intention.

12.53 a.m.

Mr. Giles Shaw: I congratulate the hon. Member for Bradford, North (Mr. Ford) and his colleagues on the speed with which they produced their report. It was in keeping with the way in which the House wished to see progress made in this matter.
I am astonished at the size and cost involved in the preparation of the commentary boxes. I am aware of the restraints placed upon a designer in fitting


a new permanent structure into the Chamber, but to see an estimate laid before the House which includes £18,000 for mechanical engineering and £20,000 for other engineering is astounding.
I welcome the comment of the Minister, on the amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) which was not called, that there might be an opportunity to broadcast Committees simultaneously, but within an estimate of £38,000 there must be room for more than merely the commentary boxes to which we are being asked to agree. In dealing with the question of cost, I must ask the Parliamentary Secretary to indicate the extent to which competitive tendering will be involved to seek to reduce the figure of £38,000.
I understand the necessity of extending into the Chamber and removing the Back Bench which is used less frequently than many other Benches. However, everyone in the House must read carefully, within the report of evidence submitted, the extent to which the broadcasting authorities require to have room to move and the availability not of space for the utilisation of broadcasting equipment or themselves but space for the provision of research assistants and others who can aid them with research material during the course of their live commenting on the proceedings of the House. That is indicated in the evidence attached to the report.
Some of the comments made by witnesses suggested that they were extremely anxious to have an uninterrupted view of the Government Front Bench. That I can fully understand. Those of us on the Opposition side of the House have an uninterrupted view of the Government Front Bench, and we would be willing to share it with any mortal who has the degree of tenacity that we have here, looking at it day after day. However, there was an implication in the evidence—I hope I am not straying out of order in referring to the evidence—that this was because some witnesses saw from this side of the House a greater media interest.
Those of us who occupy these Benches, and the substantial number of parties here represented, will welcome the Committee's comments that emphasis must be laid, particularly in broadcasting the

proceedings, on the rights of minority parties and that, if anything, the onus on the broadcasting authorities is one of being able adequately to cover the shades of political opinion expressed in the House and, indeed, the large number of persons who are not always within the purview of the Government Front Bench of the day.
That surely was part of the thoughts that went through our minds when we were discussing broadcasting in general on a previous occasion. We laid stress then on the educative part that broadcasting would play to the wider public outside, and a large part of that education would be to demonstrate the full workings of the proceedings of the House and not to provide an additional public and free platform for Government Front Bench spokesmen.
In welcoming the report and the speed with which it has been presented, we must all be very lively to the fact that a substantial onus is now placed upon the broadcasting authorities, if the scheme proceeds, that they should handle the proceedings of the House with an eye to the education and information that can be purveyed and not with an idea that they can sensationalise the proceedings. That is why it is so vital that the commitment on Committee coverage should be made here and now. That is an aspect of Parliament that is notoriously badly handled by the media. It is an aspect of increasing importance and one which deserves the recognition which sound broadcasting might, with good will and sensible handling provide.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: My hon. Friend has referred, rightly, to the importance of the work that goes on in Standing Committees and Select Committees. It could well be that these proceedings will be recorded, but are they likely to be broadcast? That is the answer I should like tonight.

Mr. Shaw: I think, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you would suggest that I would be straying out of order if I attempted to answer that point—although I see the hon. Member for Nottingham, West seeking to intervene.

Mr. English: Surely the answer is that which I gave earlier. Whether the House


itself or any Committee will be broadcast is dependent to some extent upon the newsworthiness of the proceedings. What I am trying to ensure—as I believe are most hon. Members—is that there should be no discrimination against Committees because they are Committees.

Mr. Shaw: I should like to qualify the stress that the hon. Member laid on the newsworthiness of the proceedings. It is not the job of the House to offer facilities to the media purely for the newsworthiness of the proceedings. It is the job of the House to express its proceedings to the public in a manner which is both educative and informative as well as newsworthy. I would expect that to apply to Committee proceedings, although they may be less newsworthy. Many Committee proceedings, such as those on the Finance Bill for example, may not be newsworthy but they are extremely educative and informative.
Is the Minister therefore satisfied that the £38,000 is a sensible figure in relation to the amount of construction that is necessary, and will he give a commitment to competitive tendering? Will he underline the point about Committee coverage and say that within that figure, if it is confirmed at £38,000, there must be provision for equipment in Committee Rooms to the technical extent required? I repeat my approbation to the hon. Member for Bradford, North and his team on producing the report.

1.6 a.m.

Mr. John Roper: rose

Mr. Clement Freud: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Joint Committee Minutes of Evidence, price 55p, say on page 3:
For this work to be started in August, it would be necessary for the documentation for contract action to be completed by the end of June.
May the House know whether this was done? Otherwise, it seems pointless to go on debating the matter.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not a matter for the Chair.

Mr. Roper: I hope that the Minister will be able to answer the point raised by the hon. Member for Isle of Ely (Mr.

Freud), because in reaching a decision tonight we should know whether work could be achieved during the Summer Recess.

Mr. William Price: Might I deal with this point? The Joint Committee, of which I was a member, had in mind the fact that if we wanted this work completed in time to resume broadcasting when we returned after the recess, it would certainly have been necessary to stick to that timetable. It became impossible to do that and it is now impossible to get broadcasting back in the House by then. My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, North (Mr. Ford) talked about Whitsun. I hope that that was pessimistic.

Mr. English: You did.

Mr. Price: I did not. I have in mind the beginning of 1977. But that means that if the House reaches a certain decision tonight the work will be put in hand in the normal way, all above board, but we shall not be able to complete it before the end of the Summer Recess. The rest of the work will be completed at weekends between October and when we resume broadcasting. That is now the situation.

Mr. Roper: I am grateful for that information. The point of concern is that section in the Minutes of Evidence when Mr. Ellis and Mr. Thurston, in answer to Question No. 96, said that the deadline for them for even doing the work on the commentary boxes was a decision by the end of June. I want to be sure that the decision which we are being forced to make tonight in a rather empty House must be made at this time in terms of work which has to be done in the recess. If it is impossible to do this work, in view of what is outlined in the evidence, the question of reaching a decision is less important.

Mr. Ford: That evidence was given on the assumption that the commentary boxes would be completed, externally and internally, by the end of the Summer Recess. There are certain electrical and air-conditioning installations which will not be completed even if we pass the motion, but the physical external alterations will have taken place and it will be no inconvenience to the House when the


internal works are completed at a later date.

Mr. Roper: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. After Questions 96 and 98 by the hon. Member for Howden (Sir P. Bryan) and my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, West (Mrs. Taylor) there is a reference to what are called the life support systems, which are apparently necessary for commentators in the boxes, and which I understand will be provided later. I gather that the reference is to air conditioning, rather than liquid refreshment, which is required for the broadcasting of the House adequately. Earlier in the evidence given by the Department of the Environment there was a reference to the problems of adequate tendering if the decision were rushed.
I thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for having authorised us to discuss the former Ladies' Gallery as well as the Galleries at the other end of the Chamber. In addition to the £28,000 or £38,000 involved at the other end, are we authorising today a further £6,000 for work in the former Ladies' Gallery? Have there been discussions with the Press Gallery, and the Commonwealth Press in particular, about the use of the former Ladies' Gallery by the broadcasting authorities? The House is entitled to clear assurances, which do not appear from the documents which I have seen, that the Commonwealth Press has been consulted and that there will still be adequate facilities for its members in the Press Gallery after these additional places have been handed over to the broadcasting authorities for them to carry out additional activities.
I come to the primary item in the debate, the position of the commentary boxes at the south end of the Chamber. As one who has been a keen supporter of the broadcasting of the House, and who has voted for it every time it was possible to do so, I am extremely disappointed by the Committee's recommendation. If the debate had not come on quite so late I should not have had a full opportunity of studying the report and realising how disappointing the recommendation was. Having had a chance to read it, and particularly the evidence given to the Select Committee, I am very concerned at the decision to choose the south-west corner, not the

south-east. I assure the hon. Member for Pudsey (Mr. Shaw) that it is not because the broadcasters would have the advantage in that corner of seeing the faces of my right hon. Friends on the present Government Front Bench—for a long time to come, I trust—but because there are other good reasons why the south-east corner would have been the ideal solution, as appears from the evidence not merely of the broadcasting authorities but of the Department of the Environment.
Apart from anything else, when we are concerned about public expenditure we should be very concerned about the fact that the House will have to pay an extra 40 per cent. for a commentary box in the south-west corner compared with the south-east corner. We are told in paragraph 12 of the report of
two factors which … militate against the proposals for the south east corner.
They have nothing to do with the visibility of the Opposition or the Government, or the nearness of the minority parties. They have to do with the number of seats below the Bar on the Opposition side, which would be severely reduced. The seats under the Gallery would be too obtrusive if they were brought forward by one row.
The reduction in the number of Opposition seats by nine appears to be a serious factor, whereas the reduction in the number of Government seats is not. The number of seats on each side of the Chamber is approximately the same, taking into account on the Government side the official Box at the northern end—

Mr. Whitehead: Both alternatives are based on the assumption that the broadcasters need nine or 10 seats.

Mr. Roper: All three proposals seem to give far too much space to the broadcasters. I was dealing with the options between the south-east and the southwest corners.

Mr. Ford: If my hon. Friend went into the statistics of seat occupancy he would find that the seat occupancy rate on the Opposition side is much higher than is the seat occupancy rate on the Government side.

Mr. Roper: I assume that my hon. Friend is referring to the seat occupancy


rate of the seats below the Bar, not in the body of the Chamber. I am sure he does not wish to give a false impression. That is so, although the seats below the Bar on the Opposition side are often occupied by Government Members when consulting advisers. They are frequently occupied, because that is where in Private Bill and other debates there are advisers who can be consulted. That does not occur on the Government side of the House.
Usually, although not at present, there are significantly more Members who wish to have seats on the Government side of the House, rather than on the Opposition side, so it would seem, prima facie, that if seats are to be taken they should be taken from the Opposition side rather than from the Government side.

Mr. Stephen Ross: I have sat in the Chamber frequently this summer, and on many occasions I have noticed that the Government Benches behind the Front Bench are completely empty—even when we were debating important Bills.

Mr. Roper: As I pointed out to my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, North, we are considering the seats below the Bar, not those in the body of the Chamber, the occupancy of which varies according to the time of day. Assuming that there is a majority on the Government side, as there usually is, it is more reasonable to take seats from the Opposition than from the Government. Therefore, I find unsatisfactory the first of the two arguments in paragraph 12 to justify spending an extra £10,000.
The second argument for spending an extra £10,000 is equally unsatisfactory. It is that the seats occupied by the advisers, the Secretary to the Chief Whip and the Secretary to the Opposition Chief Whip from time to time would become too obtrusive if they were moved forward one row. They would be more obtrusive but, with great respect to those who occupy the officials' Box at the northern end of the Chamber, they would still be rather less obtrusive than the officials' Box. The relative obtrusiveness of the officials' Box and the advisers' Box is not a significant argument in deciding where to position the broadcasting box.
The Select Committee's recommendations are neither well thought out nor

well argued. The evidence of the broadcasting authorities and the Department of the Environment is much wiser. I hope that the House, perhaps by postponing the decision tonight, will have an opportunity to chose the right solution—the cheaper solution—which is one of the solutions in the south-east corner of the Chamber.

Mr. Douglas Hurd: Is the hon. Gentleman taking into account in his calculations that if his recommendation is accepted there will be no major work until the next Summer Recess and by that time even the cheaper solution might well cost more than the more expensive solution would now?

Mr. Roper: I do not believe that that is the case. There are several more days left before the recess and I am sure that an opportunity can be found to discuss this.

1.21 a.m.

Mr. Roger Moate: In presenting this report the hon. Member for Bradford, North (Mr. Ford) stated that the House had taken a decision in principle in favour of permanent broadcasting, and by a substantial majority. Of course, that is quite correct. It is equally correct that the Select Committee should have proceeded rapidly to try to implement the logic of that resolution.
Nevertheless, while I disagree with the principle, there is a major difference between principle and practice and until the House of Commons wills the means, namely passes the resolution necessary to commence the process of obtaining the money, then the House of Commons cannot truly have finally said that broadcasting should commence. Nor can one say that the acceptance of that principle need impose upon us the fact that it must commence immediately. The question of timing is a different matter from the question of principle.
While I disagree with the principle, I must compliment the Select Committee on the work that it has done. The way in which the report has been provided is immensely helpful to the House. I think that the designs which have been shown to us are in great taste and that great care has been shown in the design of these alternatives. The Select Committee is to be commended on the care, good


taste and clarity with which it has presented these proposals to the House.
If the issue were solely that of a choice between a box positioned in the southwest and one in the south-east corner of this Chamber I would agree with the conclusion of the Select Committee. I think that a box positioned in the South-East corner is the logical and correct decision. But, frankly, I do not see that as the principal issue even within the relatively narrow point that we are discussing tonight.
There are other alternatives. There is the question of the cost and the question whether this is the right time for the House of Commons to approve expenditure of this nature. We have been told that the cost of providing a box is £38,000. That seems a small sum by House of Commons standards, but it is only when one gets outside that people ask why everything, even these small matters, seem to escalate beyond the cost that ordinary mortals regard as reasonable. Whether it is the cost of the canopy at the Members' entrance, or the cost of a box, these figures are quite substantial.
Even £38,000 is a considerable sum, yet that is only the trigger which will lead to the expenditure of £360,000 at least, as described in the evidence submitted by the BBC. We are contemplating the expenditure of £360,000 by the beginning of next year. It is only fair to the House and to the country to say that that is what we are deciding.
While there may be many who are in favour of broadcasting, both in the House and throughout the country, I wonder whether if the priorities were put to them, they would spend £360,000 in this way, at this time? I cannot believe that such a great benefit will be conferred upon democracy, upon this House and upon the country as to warrant public expenditure of that kind at this time. If we are genuine in our desire to cut public spending, I think that those who believe most passionately in these matters should be willing to make the sacrifice by postponing this project no matter how desirable it is for them in principle. Having said that I am opposed in principle, I am certainly

opposed to spending £360,000 on it in the forseeable future.
I turn now to some of the points of detail. I question the proposition that the observation box has to be at Floor level. I know that the BBC and other commentators were insistent—I think that those were the words used by the hon. Member for Bradford, North—that it had to be at Floor level, but I do not think that the insistence of the commentators weighs particularly heavily with me. No doubt, if they were most insistent, they would have the place which is obviously most suited for general observation of the Chamber, which, presumably, is Mr. Speaker's Chair. I am rather impressed by their modesty in not claiming that right on this occasion.
The commentators said that they must have a clear view of the Chamber. I am puzzled. I should have thought that the logical position from which to get the clearest view of the Chamber would be the Press Gallery. If that is not so, perhaps it explains why representatives of the Press in their Gallery have failed to notice the place where the Member for Faversham usually sits. Perhaps they do not have quite so clear a view of the Chamber after all, but I should have assumed that that was logically the best position from which to see most hon. Members in normal circumstances.
There are occasions when great crowds assemble on one side or the other at the end of the Chamber waiting to go into the Division Lobby. Obviously, the view of the commentators would be totally interrupted in such circumstances. Moreover—I give this purely for the purpose of comparison—I understand that in the House of Lords the box is to be positioned in the Press Gallery above the Chamber. Apparently, it is unimportant that observers of the House of Lords should have a clear view of all their Lordships. I fail to see the logic of the Committees' argument in that respect.

Mr. Ford: In fact, the configuration of the two Chambers is completely different. They can see all the seats from the Press Gallery, and there is no possible accommodation available in the House of Lords for a box at Floor level.

Mr. Moate: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that explanation, but, although it meets one point, it does not explain which parts of the House of Commons cannot be observed from the Press Gallery, and how the reporters' observation can proceed when crowds of Members are assembled in front of the observation box and moving into the Division Lobby. Such moments are often important in the House. As an example, I remind hon. Members of that important event in the House on the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Bill. I suspect that at that moment the events elsewhere in the Chamber would have been totally obscured to the reporters by the crowds assembled in front of the box. I am sure that it would have been very difficult for them to explain what was going on. Indeed, I think that it is a strong argument against broadcasting at all, because events such as that are inexplicable without reference to the whole history of what had happened in Committee and so on. But that is trespassing somewhat beyond the narrow confines of this debate.
I cannot believe that, for the purposes of observation, the observers are better off here at Floor level in the Chamber than in the Press Gallery along with other representatives of the Press.
The other argument invoked in favour of the box being at Floor level rather than in the Gallery was, I thought, rather strange. Apparently, it has something to do with people getting there in a hurry. What is that argument about? When do we see Press men in such a hurry?

Mr. Robert Cooke: When my hon. Friend's name appears on the annunciator, no doubt.

Mr. Moate: I suspect—and fear—that they would be hurrying out rather than hurrying in. But they might also have to hurry out for calls of nature and so on. I suspect that that is more likely than any other reason. Confined in a small box which, presumably, would not have all conveniences, they might, I suppose, have moments when they had to leave in a hurry—but, apparently, only in the House of Commons, not in the House of Lords, where it seems that no one is ever in a hurry—which could be right.
I am intrigued, because this question was put to Mr. Hardiman Scott by, I think, the hon. Lady the Member for Bolton, West (Mrs. Taylor), with reference to repositioning, and he used some rather strange language. He said:
Were that possible, which would mean re- positioning your clock and so on, I do not think it would look all that attractive sticking out.
I do not know to what he was referring when he made what might seem a most unflattering response to the hon. Lady. It is a most unconvincing argument.
I believe that we should consider having the observation box situated in the Press Gallery. That is where it belongs. We should give further thought to that point.
I should like to touch on two further points. First, this suggestion will involve the loss of 10 seats outside the House, but within the Chamber. We shall lose 10 seats at a cost of £38,000. If I could pick the 10 Members who might have to be excluded from the Chamber, I might not find too much dissatisfaction in expending £38,000. Nevertheless, it is a loss of space in a small Chamber. I do not feel that is a justified expenditure.
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Mr. Shaw), I question the statement by the BBC that it would prefer the box to be on the south-east corner so that it could have a clear view of the Government Front Bench. Why should that be so, unless it feels that the Government Front Bench provides the best broadcasting material? I fear that is what will happen. There will be prepared speeches from both the Government and Opposition Front Benches, which will make the best broadcasting news material. The Back Bencher will be progressively cut out. That is a strong argument against broadcasting altogether.

Mr. William Price: Part of the answer is that the broadcasting authorities were able to show that, during the month's experiment, they used material from 350 Members, including Ministers and Shadow Ministers.

Mr. Moate: I accept that. I want to know why the BBC was so concerned that it should view the Government Front Bench. It is a mystery to me,


particularly with this Government, but even with a Conservative Government. My proposition is that the observation box should be positioned centrally above the Chamber so that there is an equal view of all Members.

Mr. Tony Durant: My hon. Friend should realise that it is important for the BBC to see the Government Front Bench, because that is where all the depressing news comes from and the BBC is usually more interested in depressing news.

Mr. Moate: That might be true temporarily, but I think that we can look forward to better times ahead with a change of Government. However, my argument would be equally applicable then.
I am opposed to the principle of sound broadcasting of our proceedings, but I accept that the House has accepted it. Nevertheless, I do not believe that the House has stated clearly and categorically that this is the time to commence broadcasting. In fact, at this time of major public expenditure cuts, it is absolutely the wrong time to commit this House and the taxpayer to an expenditure of £360,000.

1.34 a.m.

Mr. Phillip Whitehead: Those of us who may have to be a little critical of the report of the Joint Committee would not wish that criticism to be misunderstood as implying attacks upon either the great care taken by the Committee or the success of the experiment. Both those matters stand of themselves in this debate.
The experiment was a total success in difficult circumstances for both the broadcasting organisations which participated in it. The work of this Parliament was brought before a new wide audience through not only the local radio stations but the hard-pressed BBC external services. We should pay tribute to that.
We should also pay tribute to the work of the Joint Committee for getting its report to the House before the Summer Recess so that, as we are told, there will be the opportunity for work to go ahead in the recess. But we cannot move from there, as appears to be the simplistic view of some of the Whips, to the point of saying that we cannot make detailed

criticisms of the report because to do that is to lose the whole principle of the matter and to cause at least one year's delay. I seriously question that view. There are two days left in this Session before we rise for the Summer Recess. My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) has already gained one assurance, and I think that some of us would seek others.
A number of Members on both sides of the House have said that they question the advisability of spending the most money on the worst of the three alternative schemes. It is a pity that the confines of the debate are so restricted as some of us would have liked to consider the order of priorities that were imposed, in a sense, on the Joint Committee. Those priorities meant that we had to discuss the broadcasting of the House of Lords before we considered in detail the broadcasting of the Committees in this place, which many of us believe are more important.
Some of the arguments about the size of the commentary box and its positioning are forced upon us because we have gone along with the view of the broadcasters—namely, that they cannot, for the purposes of radio broadcasting of a permanent nature, have remote control cameras. Therefore, we face the problem of the intrusion of commentary boxes.
There is an interesting and revealing passage in the evidence where my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Privy Council Office was cross-examining officials of the Department of the Environment. He pointed out that we are now told that the special low-light-intensity cameras may be eight years away. We may challenge the broadcasting authorities about the use of remote control cameras to get rid of the need for commentary boxes under the Gallery, but we must accept the assumption, for the purpose of the debate, that the broadcasters must have commentators in the Chamber.
We now reach the stage of discussing where they should be positioned. I did not have the privilege to be on the Joint Committee, but I was on the earlier special committee of the Services Committee, as was the hon. Member for Isle of Ely (Mr. Freud). The hon. Gentleman also has a background in broadcasting, and like me he would testify to the


fact that there was a natural aggrandisement about the evidence that tended to be brought before us by broadcasters about their needs. That was perfectly natural as there is a natural desire to get in on the scene.
I remember the enormous convoy of people who went off to the party conferences when I was a young broadcaster. We have recently seen the splendid delegation from the BBC going off to the Democratic Party Conference in the United States—a rather larger delegation than that which went from the State of Pennsylvania. But that is another matter. The fact is that a large number of people want to get in on the act.
We are told in the report that the broadcasters will need to have the Ladies Gallery, and that they should be given that on a permanent basis. There will be the commentary positions below the Gallery. Bearing in mind the configuration of the Chamber, I accept that they need to have commentary positions below the Gallery, but I do not accept that it is so important that some production assistant should get the feeling of the place that we must hand over the Ladies Gallery for all time so that people can come and go to see "politics on the hoof" down here. However, we need positions for two or more commentators, and possible two of their reserves, deputies or assistants, the people who will take over if the commentators drop dead.
I seriously query whether we need to have positions taking up 10 seats in the Chamber, or whether we need to have the position in the south-west corner. It was the view of the broadcasters when they gave evidence to the Services Committee on the investigation on which I served that they wanted to have the south-east corner. That view was reiterated in evidence to the Joint Committee. That was the assumption in the evidence of the Department of the Environment's to that Committee.
It is another matter whether the broadcasters need to have the south-east corner. Assuming that they do, and if they occupy six or seven positions, one reaches the agonising argument whether seats should be brought forward one row and whether the advisers would then become obstrusive in the Chamber, with double-banking and all the rest of it. I

wonder about that, and I also wonder about the rights of those in the southeast corner.
The answer seems to lie not in the reasons adduced in paragraph 12 of the report, but much more in the evidence given to the Committee that the Whips were not happy about positions being taken up in the south-east corner. The Minister is reported as saying
Where do the Whips come into this?
One might well ask. The Chairman of the Committee then said:
Because they have expressed a preference to retain the seats under the gallery in precisely their present form.
When the Minister asked "Why?" the Chairman of the Committee said:
I cannot tell you exactly what their objections are.

Mr. English: May I assist my hon. Friend? In the original Committee some 10 years ago it was suggested that the reason broadcasters would not like that corner was that it was already occupied by the gentleman responsible for ensuring the air-conditioning in the Chamber.

Mr. Whitehead: That may be the case. We all know that that corner of the Chamber is occupied not only by hon. Members when there is an important debate, but from time to time by other Members. Some hon. Members have suffered back injuries, for example, and there was a case some years ago involving Bernard Floud, who wished to be in the Chamber but who was not physically able to sit on the normal seats. Some hon. Members have found it necessary to listen to debates while lying prone on those seats. Such Members have invoked semi-libellous suggestions that some hon. Members have been asleep.

Mr. Roper: Will my Friend complete the quotation he began from the Joint Committee Report?

Mr. Whitehead: It was then said
… some of the people who serve the Whips' Office are allowed to go into that section. …".
We are now talking about the south-east corner. That is a perquisite and some people regard themselves as having special lien on that corner. Quite apart from that, the Chief Whip's secretary and other representatives of the Opposition Whips'


Office are to be found in that part of the Chamber, as well as advisers, and, indeed the Town Clerk of Hogsnaughton may wish to be present in the Chamber when a Private Members' Bill is being discussed.
It seems to me that broadcasters could manage easily with, at the most, five commentary positions in the south-east corner, at far less expense to the House at a time of financial stringency and control of public expenditure, without discommoding advisers, and without the broadcasters being forced into the second row in front of that position.
I see the Whips groaning in expectation that this debate might be taken seriously. The House has had only one opportunity to discuss this report, and we should be allowed to ask for amendments to be made in some respects. That is a point of substance that the Whips would do well to heed.
Finally, if we are looking ahead to a time—I think I am in order in saying this because it is mentioned fairly extensively in the minutes of evidence, and was also before the Services Committee when the question of the Joint Committee came up—when the commentary box facilities are linked not merely with the studios in Bridge Street but also with a centre for the origination of the signal within the precincts, I hope that we shall adhere in that respect to the view taken, if I read the evidence correctly, by the Joint Committee and by the hon. Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Cooke). That is that the position should be the one suggested—the former Doorkeeper's Room against the Members' Lobby.
There is a particular reason why I think we should separate the centre for the origination of the signal from the studios across the road. It hinges very much upon points which the Joint Committee has not been able to consider, such as the whole question of control of the broadcasting unit, the copyright and matters of that kind.
It would be out of order for me to attempt to go into them tonight, but it is right and proper to say that some of us would strongly endorse the view that signal origination should remain within the precincts, in the position that the hon. Member for Bristol, West and others have suggested. I shall welcome the Minister's

comments on that, and I should like him to ponder seriously the view that many of us, who for years have fervently supported broadcasting the proceedings, cannot go along with the notion of choosing the most expensive scheme at the most inappropriate time for it to go ahead.

1.47 p.m.

Mr. Clement Freud: I agree very much with the hon. Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead) about the number of positions in the commentary box. He and I and several hon. Members present here served on the Services Committee when the broadcasts were made for the trial period. I remember that at that time also the broadcasters asked for eight seats. They were whittled down to three, and they managed perfectly adequately, if uncomfortably.
From the minutes of evidence it appears that no one has tried particularly hard to dissuade the broadcasters from their demand for 10 seats. In view of the high quality of the broadcasting in the initial period which we experienced last year, I feel that to treble the number of seats is asking a little too much. I am very sorry indeed that the Joint Committee did not work on them with the same vigour as the Services Committee to get them to reduce their numbers.
I am absolutely in favour of broadcasting. It is a good thing to bring the House closer to the people. I think the experiment last year was highly successful.
As to the siting of the box, I am very much in favour of taking the advice of the people who are actually to sit in it. I believe that the broadcasters were totally right to point out that the southeast corner gives them a view of the Government Front Bench. While listeners hear the voice of any Member they might want to hear, it is expressions on the faces of the Ministers of the Government of the day that are of importance to the broadcasters, whether they themselves speak or are insulted or criticised by the Opposition. The most important thing is for the broadcaster to see the expressions on their faces.
When the experiment took place, there was very little commentary from the critics. It was very much a question of listening to the actual voices of the Members. I believe that the south-east


corner is by far the best place, even if the Royal Fine Art Commission does not believe that the prettiness of the advisers would actually help the general aesthetic appearance of the House.

Mr. Roper: I understand from the earlier remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, North (Mr. Ford) that the Royal Fine Art Commission was equally content with all three schemes.

Mr. Freud: I do not think the hon. Member heard what I said. I was talking about the Royal Fine Art Commission's appraisal of the people sitting in the Gallery. The commission seemed to be agreeable to any suggestion made to it.
As has been said, the problem about agreeing to the motion is the size of the sum involved. Whether it be £38,000 or £28,000, or some in-between figure, it triggers off the expenditure of about £272,000, which seems to me to be a colossal sum. I feel that it should be recouped in part at least in rental, or in some other way, by the people using the facility.
I am particularly concerned about the sum of £10,000 for the storage of tapes. That seems typical of the sort of thing that is slipped into the report. I do not know how many tapes there will be, but I undertake to store tapes for half that sum and do very well out of it.
I am in favour of broadcasting, but I do not think that the question has been considered carefully enough.

1.51 a.m.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: I wish to associate myself with the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Notingham, West (Mr. English) in connection with the need for some facilities, albeit as cheap as possible, in two of the Committee Rooms.
I ask my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Privy Council Office—the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. Price) —a question. I understand that this expenditure of between £33,000 and £38,000 is being borne by the Department of the Environment. If that is right, why is it —ask Mr. Tom Steele, the manager of Radio Forth, and certain members of BBC Scotland—that in connection with the proposed Scottish Assembly it is suggested that the local radio stations—Radio Forth, Radio Clyde and BBC

Scotland—should pay for all the facilities?
I should like an answer to that question, at my hon. Friend's convenience.

1.52 a.m.

Sir John Langford-Holt: I shall not delay the House for very long. If somebody objects to something, he often says that it is the wrong moment for doing it. But it is right that we should think of the expense involved. Some quite extraordinary figures have been presented to this House, almost casually—figures with which we are supposed to agree, at this time of night, without a murmur. The sum of between £361,000 and £372,000 has been mentioned, but anybody who has had dealings with expenditure knows that the suggested maximum will certainly prove to be the minimum, by many tens of thousands of pounds. The cost of this project will rise, without any doubt, over the half-million mark, and apparently annual payments will have to be made by the House.
I apologise for not having heard the first of the speeches, but since I have been here I have not heard any mention of the subject of copyright. Will anybody pay for the copyright? Will there be any contribution from outside bodies, or will the total burden fall upon the House of Commons? We must remember that the House is not the most popular place in the country at the moment, and it does us no good to consider quite casually expenditure of this dimension without, apparently, considering the question of the way in which the money is to be provided.
All people are in favour of cuts in expenditure, in principle, but most of them say "My project, however, is quite exceptional and must go forward." We hear that said week after week. We are all guilty of it at some time or other.
I consider that this is the wrong moment for the House to consider this type of expenditure, with little care for the way in which it is to be provided, and I shall not support the motion, for that reason.

1.54 a.m.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: The House is unfortunate in that the Government have not tabled a "take


note" motion in respect of the report and approved certain recommendations. I am sorry that they did not see fit to do so, because that would have made it easier to follow up the points made by the hon. Member for Shrewsbury (Sir J. Langford-Holt) on matters such as copyright. These matters are very important.
I confess that I did not approve the motion to have sound broadcasting, not because I am against it in principle but because the experiment was far too short to commit the House to a permanent system. We should have tried it for a year so that we could determine the secondary effects over a period.
One of the things about the experiment which were not so good was that Government speakers occupied about 60 per cent. of the time. That point was raised in relation to the south-east corner, although I do not think that that necessarily outweighs the added complications of the south-west corner.
I am more concerned with the amount of time that the commentators need to be in the box. Obviously that will be at its greatest at Question Time, but if I recall correctly in the period of our experiment that box was not occupied very much. There were many complaints about its size and seating, but surely the seating was precisely what we occupy. We do not have much room but we have to be ready to stand up to speak, and we must have with us a lot of material. I would have thought that the facilities were not all that bad. There is therefore a case yet to be made for taking the considerable space which is being asked for.

Mr. Freud: May I clear up one point? The reason that 60 per cent. of the time went to the Government was that a great deal of Question Time was broadcast in which Ministers repeatedly answered Questions. I do not think that anybody complained about the distribution of time.

Mr. Spearing: That may be so, but if we are amplifying the House we may be amplifying the Government instead. That is a wider issue that has already been decided in principle, but what the hon. Gentleman said has to some extent borne out my point.

Mr. William Price: Perhaps I should make clear what the figure represents. The 60 per cent. referred to as Government time included Labour Back Benchers. In that sense it is not strictly accurate to describe it as Government time or to suggest that my hon. Friends were always sympathetic to the Government.

Mr. Spearing: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for correcting me on that point.
I come back now to the schemes. Scheme 1 concerning the south-west corner is an apparently extraordinary choice. Not only is it one that the broadcasters find less convenient it is clearly the most complex. In answering Question No. 42 the witness from the Department of the Environment was asked about the supply of the materials. He replied
We would have to presuppose some unconventional, though not necessarily wrong, methods of engaging the contractor".
That was ominous to say the least. Because there is concrete flooring there and the need to reposition the Tannoy, which works very well and serves the House very well with its skills, considerable engineering work would be required.
In Question 43 the same gentleman says
The engineering aspects will be much more troublesome.
We know what happens once events take that course. Time goes on, complications ensue and the costs increase. So I do not find the case for the south-west corner compelling. I find the case for the south-east more attractive.
Perhaps we could go for the third solution which requires rather less space. I found it extraordinary that the Committee should have opted for the southwest corner. Perhaps their choice was influenced by the need for the commentators to see the Government, but I think that they will probably see the Government anyway, whatever their position.
If we approve the scheme we are also apparently approving expenditure outside. This has been called the "trigger". I should like the Minister to explain how we do that by passing the motion. Quite clearly if there are to be commentators' boxes in the House there must be equipment outside. We are told in the report


that this will be at 2, Bridge Street and that it will cost £272,000. I have asked for these premises to be offered to Her Majesty's Stationery Office so that citizens can buy copies of Hansard and other excellent HMSO publications. The Ministers for the Civil Service have not been keen on this idea for the past six years, but it is about time that people got in the Parliament Square area Hansard and the White Papers and other documents on which this House subsists.
It would be ironic in the extreme if we spent considerable sums even without the physical refurbishments needed to fit in the editorial gubbins of sound broadcasting, but found it impossible to satisfy the need of citizens to be able to buy copies of Hansard, Bills and other documents in this area.

Mr. Roper: In resolutions 6 and 7 of the minutes and proceedings of the Services Committee published today, No. 1, rather than No. 2, Bridge Street is recommended, so that there is a possibility of No. 2 being used for the purpose my hon. Friend wishes.

Mr. Spearing: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's intervention, but I do not think that I should pursue that matter any further, bearing in mind the terms of the motion. However, I hope that this subject will be referred to by the Minister.
We do not want the Government to come to the House with one set of recommendations for £38.000 and then find ourselves having to pay at least 10 times that sum.

2.3 a.m.

Mr. Tim Rathbone: The quality of the report is in sorry contrast to the lateness of the hour and the day of the debate. Some of the points raised by hon. Members on both sides of the House would have been more pertinent and practicable if we had debated the report nearer its publication date of 10th June.
The points that I wish to mention have been touched on by a number of hon. Members who have taken a different view from mine. My hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Mr. Shaw) made an important point in relation to the siting of the commentary boxes when he said that it was important for broadcasters to be able to see the Opposition parties and their

Leaders and all Back Benchers, though especially on the Opposition side, rather than looking at the faces and listening to the words of the executive who inhabit the Front Bench on the Government side. Broadcasting the proceedings of the House will be a dramatic step forward in improving the influence, if not the power, of Back Benchers.
The corner of the Chamber on the Government side is a better site for a box than the corner on this side. I have no qualms about overriding the desires of the broadcasters to ensure that they do not make a slip from time to time whenever a Cabinet reshuffle has taken place.
With regard to the size of the boxes, it is to the advantage of the House as a whole that the broadcasters and those people who will be instantaneously commenting on what goes on here are in a reasonable state of comfort so that they can give vent to wise and wide-awake comment on the proceedings as they evolve. It is worth while to look forward to the day—it may be way off in the future—when we may be considering television coverage. It would be sad to have to start rebuilding all over again at huge additional expense at some time in the future in order to be able to accommodate commentators and cameras for the television broadcasts.
As to cost, we have to watch every pound. However, it is in peculiar contrast to the total of five speakers who spoke in the previous debate tonight, when considering an advance of £30 million to British Leyland—I was not present for that debate, but I presume that three of the five spoke against the proposal—that everyone taking part in this debate has been venting his wrath about the expenditure of a sum that represents about one-hundredth of that amount. This is in taking a step endorsed by the House in previous debate and which could be the single most important advance in the democratic process of the House of Commons. Sadly, that democratic process has not been evident through much of our debate and procedures during the past year.

2.7 a.m.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: I should like to raise the question whether it is essential, although it may


be desirable, to have a commentary box at all for broadcasting. If one can pick up the sound and if a commentator is some way away from the Chamber with an Order Paper, the only people who will lose out are those who make interventions. A commentator can quite easily put in the Question at Question Time, and he or she ought to know which Minister is replying. The only Members who might lose out are those making gibes or interruptions from a sedentary position, because Mr. Speaker or Mr. Deputy Speaker invariably mentions the name of the Member called to speak. The only Members who do not have their names mentioned are those who rise without being recongised by the Chair.
I am not suggesting that this would be a perfect way to provide a commentary on our proceedings, but it is perfectly feasible to have broadcasting without any of these constructions at all.

2.8 a.m.

Mr. Robert Cooke: I am not here tonight to give a Conservative Party line on whether broadcasting should be put on a permanent basis. We have a free vote, and for us that means just that—a free vote.
However, as a party we regret the circumstances which have led to this last-minute debate, at a late hour and at the very end of the Session. We also regret the need to place the House in something of a dilemma. We have already heard from other speakers "Vote for this and you can have broadcasting back by mid-1977. Vote against it and you certainly will not have it until the end of next year."
One could complain also about the constraints placed upon us preventing a wide debate. However, you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, have been most generous in your application of the rules of the order. Perhaps I may think that has been in response to what I said to you earlier. We have managed to touch on quite a number of the broader points, which will help the House to come to a decision tonight.
I suppose that one could criticise the time that we took to set up the Joint Committee. We cannot, however, criticise the thoroughness of its chairman, the hon. Member for Bradford, North (Mr. Ford). Nor can we criticise

the officials of the Department of the Environment who gave us their ready assistance, particularly the highly-skilled draftsman whose work appears as the illustrations to the report. I know that they took a great deal of time and trouble on this work because there are other matters that concern the Services Committee and occasionally we had to wait a little while the work was being done on this vital matter.
I had the privilege of serving on the original Committee, on the Joint Committee, and, together with the Lord President and others, on the Services Committee. I have been chairman of that part of it which is concerned with the interests of Members and their accommodation. Space in this Palace and its surroundings is a scarce commodity and there is fierce competition for such as is available. But faced with the vote in the House of 299 to 124, we felt that we should give some priority to recommendations about space for the broadcasters. But, I hasten to say, not a square foot will be recommended or surrendered to them above their absolutely essential needs.
The Joint Committee made its report on this originally narrow issue and the Services Committee, being the servant of the House, did not wish to frustrate the activities of the Joint Committee. It took on board at once the question of accommodation and lost no time, at its very next meeting—which was summoned especially to deal with this matter—in endorsing what the Joint Committee had requested, subject of course to the agreement of the House. But there was no question of any obstruction or delay there by anyone.
The scheme which the Services Committee endorsed was Scheme 1. I do not want to make any play with what the Royal Fine Art Commission said, which caused some laughter in the House when it was referred to. I hope that the commission has as great a sense of humour about these matters as the House itself, which invariably takes a contrary view to the commission. There may be some consolation to be found in the fact that the commission thought that the canopy at the Members' entrance was a beautiful affair—although many of us regret that it cost so much.
I do not want to do the Minister's job for him in referring to all the speeches which have been made—

Mr. William Price: Please do.

Mr. Cooke: —but perhaps I could point to some of the questions which require an answer and to some of the pitfalls into which he might fall if he were not prepared to tackle them.
The House wants to know a good deal more than what the Minister has to say about this narrow report. The hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) displayed tonight his usual thoroughness. He has been dealing with this question for much longer than other hon. Members who have taken part in the debate—

Mr. English: Eleven years.

Mr. Cooke: I have been active here for eight years longer than that, but I have not spent so much time on broadcasting matters as has the hon. Gentleman.
The hon. Gentleman and others mentioned Committees. Surely we should aim for as complete as possible a picture of the activities of the House. Broadcasting of Committees is essential. He said that perhaps a couple of Committee rooms could be set up for broadcasting—one Select Committee Room and one Standing Committee Room, because they are differently constructed.
That would not be entirely satisfactory. It would be all right as an experiment but we are aiming at something permanent. Those who want to proceed with broadcasting want to get it right on a permanent basis. Merely to have two Committee Rooms equipped so that if a Committee decided that it wanted to have its proceedings broadcast it would have to move to a different room when some other Committee was sitting there would hardly be satisfactory.

Mr. English: I agree with the hon. Gentleman but I am also trying to assist all hon. Members who believe in trying to keep down public expenditure. I understand that to adapt two Committee Rooms would cost about a quarter of the cost involved in the Chamber. That is very reasonable, but if it had to be done in 16 rooms it would cost proportionately

more. I do not think that it is a permanently satisfactory solution, but it is a reasonable solution at this time.
What I do not wish to see, and what I believe the overwhelming majority of hon. Members do not wish to see, is the House broadcasting separately, with no broadcasting of Committees whatsoever.

Mr. Cooke: There are a number of imponderables here. The Government might also consider whether the Committee should have the power to decide whether it is broadcast. The House will not have the power but will be broadcast if we so resolve. I can conceive a Committee where the Government were on a hiding to nothing, such as the wealth tax Committee, where the Government majority might well decide that it did not want the proceedings to be broadcast, or a Committee might wish to protect a Minister coming to a public hearing.
Most hon. Members mentioned the question of cost. I hope that the Minister will be able to say a little on that.
My hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Mr. Shaw) was the first hon. Member to talk about the so-called two-to-one coverage, or two-to-one advantage of the Government over the official Opposition. From the evidence of Mr. Hardiman Scott and the BBC memorandum it was clear that there was almost exactly a two-to-one difference in the coverage. There is no doubt that the Committee's recommendation on where the boxes should be was an attempt to redress this apparent imbalance. We came down in favour of the more costly position on the west side not merely because the commentators would have a good view of the Opposition Front Bench but because they would have a good view of the wealth of talent on the Opposition Back Benches.
The hon. Member for Farnworth (Mr. Roper), with his characteristic thoroughness—we have come across each other on a number of occasions in our parliamentary lives—asked many awkward questions about the boxes, the number of seats and so on. It is up to the Minister to try to straighten out the record. The hon. Gentleman talked about 10 seats that would be lost on the Government side, but apart from the reclining Member with back ache they are seldom used,


whereas the seats on the Opposition side are heavily used, by Government supporters, too. Tannoy would be accommodated in the 10-seat box on the West side, which might be of some advantage if there were a technical problem and Tannoy and the broadcasting authorities had to be in communication.

Mr. Whitehead: How many commentators does the hon. Gentleman envisage in the 10-seat box, and why?

Mr. Cooke: It is not for me to provide all the answers that the broadcasters might be able to think up when asking for a considerable number of seats. There will no doubt be a demand for more space as broadcasting expands. The hon. Gentleman is a member of the Annan Commission, and will know that the present choice, even in radio, may well be expanded as a result of Annan. It was to some extent to anticipate future demands that the recommendations in the report were made. If we had recommended the east side we would have been in a straitjacket.
My hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate) asked whether the commentators' box should be in the Press Gallery. We did not see the gentlemen in the Press Gallery pointing as my hon. Friend was speaking, but if we had seen them we would have noticed that they were pointing to parts of the Chamber they could not see. They cannot see some of the expert Members of the House who frequently sit near Mr. Speaker's Chair on either side. The Press Gallery does not command a complete range of view, although in the House of Lords, because of the configuration of the Chamber, the situation is different.
The hon. Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead), whose expertise we welcome, challenged what was said in the Services Committee's Report. He is on record as having attended the meeting on Tuesday 6th July, at which the report of the Joint Committee was endorsed and a resolution was passed by the Committee concerning the specific point about Scheme 1.

Mr. Whitehead: Most of the discussion in the Services Committee was about the other matters which I raised with the hon. Gentleman in the debate, that is to

say, the position of the former Doorkeepers' room, not about whether we wanted Scheme 1, Scheme 2 or Scheme 3. There was no extended debate about that.

Mr. Cooke: I hope the record is clear that the hon. Gentleman was present and had the advantage of hearing the discussion. The resolution recommending that the report of the Joint Committee should be supported was carried by the Services Committee nem con.
I agree with the hon. Member for Derby, North that it would be advisable for the place of signal origination to be separate from the rest of the broadcasting apparatus. We have not decided whether the signal origination should be done by Tannoy under the aegis of the House or by one of the broadcasting organisations under the aegis of the House. The Joint Committee has yet to report on that. We had to keep the option open. There is a room over the Commons Corridor between the Members' Lobby and the Central Lobby set aside for this purpose.
The hon. Member for Isle of Ely (Mr. Freud) asked about the wider expenditure implications, and I hope that the Minister will deal with that matter. The hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) asked who should pay, and my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury (Sir J. Langford-Holt) was concerned about cost. He also referred to copyright. We have not considered that, but perhaps the Minister will give a hint on how that will be taken care of.
The hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) called for a wide cross-section of Parliament's work to be broadcast, and this we endorse. Tannoy can deal with the point he raised about signal origination. The Services Committee resolution refers to No. 1 Bridge Street, not to No. 2 Bridge Street. I do not want to go into the question where we might or might not be able to spread ourselves on the Bridge Street site, save to say that the Services Committee as the servant of the House has long requested Governments of all colours to make available more accommodation for Members and other purposes related to Parliament on the Bridge Street site. The only constraint has been of public expenditure, but the Government are not unsympathetic within the bounds of what we shall be able to spend, and we are


all doing our level best without exceeding the limits to make the best use of the accommodation there and to decant out of this building into other buildings everything that does not have to be near the Chamber.
My hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Bottomley) had perhaps the brightest idea of all, that we did not need a commentary box and that commentators outside the Chamber would be able to recognise us and our procedures by listening. We might ponder on that during the recess.
In normal circumstances it would be undesirable for the Government or a Select Committee to ask the House to write a blank cheque. The Opposition are wholly opposed to the writing of blank cheques to cover unspecified public expenditure. However, if the House of Commons feels that the wider communication, possible through the broadcasts, is of such urgency, we would not wish to use any party influence to prevent it. Indeed, there are many hon. Members on this side of the House who would wish to give it a warm welcome.

2.25 a.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Privy Council Office (Mr. William Price): This is a matter for the House. It is true to say that the majority of members of this Government would welcome permanent broadcasting but it is certainly not our wish to railroad anyone into anything at all.
My Department and the Joint Committee were faced with a difficult problem. How could we implement a decision of this House, taken by a majority of 175, and how soon could we do it? It has been explained, and it is worth repeating, that we have a simple choice tonight, assuming for a moment that the House still wishes to have broadcasting at all. Do we introduce it in six months' time or in 18 months? What the Joint Committee did was take the decision of this House seriously and it has sought to find a way out of what has been a rather difficult situation.
It is a fact that we shall have to undertake the work in the Chamber during the long recess. To attempt to do it at any other time would, in my view—and I have taken expert advice on this—create quite unnecessary levels of inconvenience.

I do not think that is a possibility. I am satisfied that it was not possible for the Joint Committee to make a full report in time for a decision before the recess. There are important points to be considered as has been mentioned—privilege, copyright, financing, accommodation, the parliamentary unit, and so on [An HON. MEMBER: "Defamation."] Defamation, certainly. These are matters which have to go before the Select Committee and it will be a little while before it will be in a position to report to the House.

Mr. Roper: I am concerned that the Minister can assure us that if the decision is made tonight, which is now well into August, it will be possible through the recess for the project inside the Chamber to be completed because certainly some of the answers given by officials to the Select Committee seem to indicate otherwise.

Mr. Price: It is important that I should make the position clear. My understanding is that the facia will certainly be completed and that the box itself will be up but that work will have to be done inside the box which will create no inconvenience to the House at all and that it will be done at weekends between the period on which we come back and the time at which we hope it will be possible to resume broadcasting.
What the Select Committee did was to attempt to find a way to introduce broadcasting as quickly as possible, but in a way which I must say most of us would agree was a rather poor second best.

Mr. Freud: Has the Minister taken into consideration the fact that if all this work is to be done over the weekends it will be charged at double and treble time?

Mr. Price: I was, in fact, going to mention that. It is absolutely right that the House should know what the situation is, and I will come to the costing in a moment. I will give the exact breakdown of how the £38,000 has been arrived at so that hon. Members can make up their own minds.
It would be futile to pretend that what we have found is an ideal solution. What we have done is the best that we possibly could, under difficult terms of reference,


with the co-operation of the broadcasting authorities. Neither the BBC nor the IBA would have done it this way if it could possibly have been avoided. But we have given the House the opportunity to resume early broadcasting if it chooses to do so.
I would accept as perfectly valid, any arguments that it would be preferable to wait until the Joint Committee has presented its full report. That, of course, is the tidy way to proceed. But it then means—and this must be stressed—that there would be no broadcasting until early in 1978. It was that situation which we sought to avoid.
I would like to thank the Joint Committee for the speed with which it produced its report. It is for the House to decide whether it regards the recommendation as acceptable. Perhaps I can add my thanks to the work of my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, North (Mr. Ford). No one could have done more than he has to get this Select Committee before the House. I hope that he is wrong about his forecast of Whitsun and I hope that I am right in my forecast of soon after the Christmas Recess.

Mr. English: My hon. Friend seems to be implying something which I am sure he would wish to deny. I am sure that he would deny that the broadcasting authorities wish to broadcast the House alone, and not Committees.

Mr. Price: I did not say that.

Mr. English: I know that my hon. Friend did not, but there seemed to be the implication.

Mr. Price: I do not know where my hon. Friend got that idea. I can deny it on their behalf. They are very keen to broadcast Committee proceedings as well the House, and I may add that I am equally keen to see them do so. But there is a problem which we have discussed, and I thought that my hon. Friend was satisfied with the answer.
The hon. Member for Pudsey (Mr. Shaw) described the cost as astonishing, and I must say that I, too, find it difficult to understand. One might as well be perfectly honest about it. It is an extremely high figure for what seems to

me to be a relatively small job. That is why I asked for a breakdown, and I will state it. Builders' work is £20,000, made up as follows: preliminaries and contingencies £2,000; screens and protection £2,750; demolition and clearance £2,800; construction £6,600; finishings and acoustic treatment £3,250; builders' work in connection with services £1,800; furnishing work £800. Mechanical and electrical work comes to £18,000, including as the main item £12,000 for air-conditioning modifications for commentators' and Tannoy boxes. I should add here in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Farnworth (Mr. Roper) that in the figure of £38,000 the work on the Ladies' Gallery is included.

Mr. Giles Shaw: I am grateful to the Minister for producing a detailed breakdown, but I am afraid that it does not reduce the anxiety since the constituent parts are as frightening as the total. The anxiety which we are collectively expressing is that a way must be found to reduce the total sum, and perhaps the Minister will comment on whether that is possible.

Mr. Price: I have done that already. I have sought every piece of advice which was available to me. I have asked for the figures to be broken down to the last pound. I have read the figures to the House, and I shall be happy to give the hon. Gentleman a copy if he wants it before he decides how to vote. It is a substantial sum of money. It seems an awful lot for what is a comparatively small job. I can only say that these are figures produced by experts, and I am a layman in these matters. [An HON. MEMBER: "Paid experts."] They may be highly paid or not. All I can say that I asked for a breakdown of the cost, I got it, and I have given it to the House. Hon. Members must make up their own minds.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: As one who voted on many occasions for the introduction of broadcasting, I have to take into account also that we have had some other experts who introduced a White Paper on cuts in public expenditure and subsequently we had a further round of cuts in public expenditure. This has influenced me greatly. What do I say to the women in my constituency who sent me a petition asking for inside toilets for little toddlers in a


school who will otherwise have to continue to tramp great distances down the school yard to get to the toilet? What can I say when we here are to spend an enormous sum on providing these broadcasting facilities? I am not satisfied, and for that reason I shall take the necessary steps to vote against it.

Mr. Price: My hon. Friend must do what he thinks right. I am not seeking to persuade him one way or the other. All I can say is that public expenditure in this country has not come to a full stop. I heard that same argument when I had a job to persuade hon. Members to accept their £6. It seems to me that anything to do with Members of Parliament or to do with the House of Commons always comes at the wrong time, and we shall never do it if we can find an opportunity not to do it. My hon. Friend talks of public expenditure. Only an hour and a half ago we agreed, without a Division, on a matter of which I approve—I have many British Leyland workers in my constituency—a far larger sum, and on Monday night there was astonishment that we actually voted on a matter involving £530 million. We are talking here about a relatively small sum.

Mr. Whitehead: Will my hon. Friend accept that one way he could save £10,000 now would be to take the view which, I believe, most hon. Members who have spoken take, that is, to have Scheme 2 and not Scheme 1? It is not too late to accept that.

Mr. Price: I am not absolutely sure of the constitutional position. That was a matter for the Select Committee, and it made the recommendation, not the Government. I went to the Select Committee and argued the case for the other box. [Interruption.] I was on it, and I argued the case for the other box.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Price: After I have dealt with this point. Many Members have raised the question of the box. There is no doubt that what weighed heavily with the Select Committee was the evidence of the BBC that it was absolutely crucial that it should be over there where it could see the Government Front Bench. That may have been a factor which should not have

swayed the Select Committee, but it did. The Select Committee was faced with a situation in which, during the experimental period, the Government and their followers got 60 per cent. of the time and the official Opposition got 29 per cent. of the time. There was unanimous agreement on the Select Committee that this was a matter of some concern which should be looked at. There was no case for increasing the Government's advantages in the way that the BBC and the IBA suggested. That was the major factor.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: Will the hon. Gentleman explain how hon. Members ought to vote if they would like to see a box put in the "No" Lobby corner? The reason I ask that question is that presumably the Minister had something to do with the wording of the motion, and it does not make it clear.

Mr. Price: I am not sure that I understand the question, and I do not think that the hon. Gentleman would understand the answer.

Mr. Whitehead: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Would it help to solve the dilemma in my mind, which is apparently also in the mind of the hon. Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Bottomley), if the Chair were to accept a manuscript amendment to paragraph 12 of the report?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: No. That would not be possible.

Mr. Price: rose—

Mr. Roper: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Presumably it would be possible for the Government to withdraw the motion and to table an alternative motion which would give us the box in the south-east corner.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not a matter for the Chair.

Mr. Price: The hon. Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate), for whose comments I am grateful, as a doubter put the case fairly. I should like to deal with the need for observation at Floor level. This is a matter of some importance. I refer to the point that I made earlier. During the experimental period it was possible for 350 Members to be quoted. That process was helped enormously by


the commentators being in a position to see everyone clearly. It is apparent that from the Press Gallery it is not possible to do that.
My hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead) asked about the signal origination. I can give the same assurance as was given by the hon. Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Cooke) from the Opposition Front Bench—that it will be within the precincts.
The hon. Member for the Isle of Ely (Mr. Freud) argued that this proposal would trigger off other expenditure. I understand that it will not do that until the House has considered the final report of the Joint Committee. The hon. Gentleman wanted this money recouped in rental. We have never charged anyone in this building—Press, radio or television—for the use of facilities. That would be as true of his local authority as of this House. That would be an entirely new departure which, I should argue strongly, would be wrong.

Mr. English: My hon. Friend will recollect the first two reports on this subject. That was true except in so far as the authorities were making a profit out of them, in which case we would expect to recoup.

Mr. Price: I think that my hon. Friend would run into trouble with the broadcasting authorities on a matter of principle.

Mr. English: They agreed to that.

Mr. Price: They are not agreeing now.

Mr. English: They did agree.

Mr. Price: I am talking about the situation as it now exists. I have spoken to the authorities at some length and I have described their position. I give the categoric assurance that the £300,000 to which several hon. Members have referred could not be spent as a result of tonight's debate. That is an absolute certainty.

Mr. Freud: If the Minister insists that there will be no rental, will he ensure that the commercial broadcasting organisations do not intersperse proceedings of the House with advertisements, for which they are highly paid?

Mr. Price: I shall need to look into that. I can tell the hon. Gentleman that the broadcasting authorities are arguing strongly that local radio is not a sound business proposition at this moment. I doubt whether some of the small broadcasting stations could pay any sort of rental, or would be prepared to do so if it were demanded of them.
My hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) asked about the Scottish Assembly, where he thinks we shall be charging for facilities for the Press, radio and television. I shall look into that matter tomorrow and write to him.
It was inevitable that the debate would go a little wider than the narrow issue of the Joint Committee's Report, despite your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I do not complain that it has gone wider. To an extent—not a great extent—we have reopened the debate whether our proceedings should be broadcast. I hope that the House will forgive me—in any event, I do not think the Chair would allow me to do so—if I do not rehearse the arguments as I see them for broadcasting our proceedings.
I believe that the time is right. There is a demand from the public and the broadcasting authorities are keen to return. In my belief Parliament would benefit from broadcasting. The matter has been discussed many times and I thought that the House had finally decided on the principle while leaving the Select Committee to find acceptable methods of implementation. It was in that spirit that we approached the matter and it is in that spirit that I commend it to the House.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 36, Noes, 9.

Division No. 311.]
AYES
[2.43 a.m.


Allaun, Frank
Cryer, Bob
Freud, Clement


Armstrong, Ernest
Dalyell, Tam
Golding, John


Atkinson, Norman
Douglas.Mann, Bruce
Harrison, Walter (Wakefied)


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
English, Michael
Hurd, Douglas


Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)
Flannery, Martin
Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoin)


Cohen, Staniey
Foot, Rt Hon Michael
McNamara, Kevin


Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)
Ford, Ban
Madden, Max




Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Park, George
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Parry, Robert
Sims, Roger



Penhawgon, David
Stallard, A. W.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Price, William (Rugby)
Weatherill, Bernard
Mr. David Stoddart and


Rathbone, Tim
Whitehead, Phillip
Mr. John Ellis.


Roper, John






NOES


Bates, Alf
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Winterton, Nichoias


Brotherton, Michael
Ross, William (Londonderry)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Durant, Tony
Skinner, Dennis
Mr. Roger Moate and


Grist, Ian
Tinn, James
Mr. Peter Bottomley.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House approves the recommendations in the First Report from the Joint Committee on Sound Broadcasting which relate to this House.

DROUGHT BILL [Lords]

Ordered,
That in respect of the Drought Bill [Lords], notices of Amendments, new Clauses or new Schedules to be moved in Committee may be accepted by the Clerks at the Table before the Bill has been read a second time.—[Mr. Foot.]

MORTGAGE FUNDS (URBAN AREAS)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Stoddart.]

2.56 a.m.

Mr. Frank Allaun: This is the first time that the issue of red-lining or blue-zoning has ever been debated in the House of Commons. What it means is that a whole area, usually an older, inner city area, is deprived of mortgages by most or all building societies. It is so called because the societies draw a line on the map round a part of the town or city and let their managers know that applications from that area will not be granted.
For nine months I have been collecting evidence that this really does happen and I have several voluminous files of unassailable material on the matter. It has come from residents' associations, university studies, solicitors and individual victims of the practice. It has disastrous results. It so accelerates the deterioration of a declining area as to prevent its being saved and to turn it into a virtual ghetto. In America the process has gone so far that the centres of many cities have been turned into

urban deserts. We can and must prevent that from happening here.
In some parts of our cities there are whole streets with "For Sale" notices up. The owners cannot obtain purchasers—not because there are not families desperately anxious to buy them but because they cannot obtain a building society mortgage. Sometimes these houses are left empty. Within a short time they are vandalised by children, and lead thieves steal the lead from the roof and the water pipes. Rubbish is dumped inside them. Before long they are complete write-offs and the councils have to demolish them.
Nothing could be more galling to families in great housing need than to see good houses becoming derelict and then being destroyed. In some cases the only purchasers who can afford to buy them are racketeering landlords who do not improve the houses but, instead, cram in as many tenants as they can and exploit them with exorbitant rents.
Not only are those houses afflicted but the whole neighbourhood is infected. It runs down rapidly, soon becoming an urban wasteland.
The irony of it is that most would-be mortgagors put their savings into building societies. These funds are invested by the societies in providing homes for the more prosperous families in the richer areas.
I wish to give some evidence of the harmful and iniquitous practice of redlining, though in a short speech of this kind I have time for only a few examples. Then I want to explain why I think that this building society blight is being inflicted; next to show how the recent Government cuts have worsened the situation; and, lastly, to put forward a solution to the problem.
I now wish to quote a letter that I have received from Hull, from a man


living in the heart of the inner city area. He says:

"1. Up to June 1976 and after eleven months of the special Government-cum-building society schemes operation the three allotted building societies have managed to part with 72 mortgages. (Before circular 64/75 Hull District Council admit to having dealt with an average of 100 applications per month thus implying that over a similar eleven-month period they might have expected to deal with 1,100 applications.) 72 mortgages hardly fills the gap.

2. Those areas of Hull which for no apparent reason were never able to attract mortgages from private building societies remain. I might add these areas are not subject to clearance, or road proposals, and are in fact zoned for residential development. The building societies still pursue policies, even under the government agreed scheme, of identifying 'declining' areas. This means if a property is situated in one of these areas that irrespective of the properties condition or the applicants' financial status no mortgage is available.

3. The 17,000 housing waiting list remains.

4. There has been no acceleration in the revival of Hull's inner city area, just further stagnation.
Why is it that private building societies will not extend mortgages to these mainly inner city areas, even after having entered into an agreement with central government to 'fill the gap'?
It cannot be the individual applicant's financial status as the building societies never proceed far enough with an application to investigate such matters.
Neither is the condition of the property, which is the subject of the application as the societies never proceed far enough to necessitate the carrying out of a survey.

Next I turn to Liverpool in general and the Liverpool 8 district in particular. This case was brought to me by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden). A fairly top-level, highly-paid civil servant, who is a friend of his, wished to buy a house in this district. Because of its location the application was refused by every building society approached. Eventually the applicant obtained a loan through an insurance broker but had to pay a much higher rate of interest than would have been the case if a building society mortgage had been obtained. I instance this case for this reason: it could not have been through any lack of income or trustworthiness that this official was refused a loan. It was because of the location of the house.

The best documented evidence I have received is from Birmingham where Camilla Lambert of the Centre for Urban and Regional Studies has produced a report of 73 foolscap pages. It shows, complete with interviews with building society managers and surveyors, how whole neighbourhood are excluded from consideration for loans. Handsworth and Sparkbrook are but two of the areas where many societies will grant no mortgages at all.

I have received two long and detailed memoranda about Leeds from the North Hyde Park Residents Association and the South Headingley Community Association, both representing residents in Leeds 6. They quote 23 cases with names, addresses and interviews of alleged refusal by building societies of mortgages on houses because of their locality. What is interesting in this locality is that many of the applicants for mortgages are eminent and highly-paid staff at Leeds University who want to live nearby and who are prepared to spend money on improving the houses and, thereby, the district. So one again, the refusal cannot be because they are potentially unreliable interest payers.

Next I have here a letter from a Manchester solicitor. He says
'I find it heartbreaking that young couples and families desperately needing a home are denied the chance to purchase small terraced houses that are lying empty around our cities. We appear to have a homelessness problem on the one hand, and yet a great deal of property decaying because it is blighted by the building societies.
In Manchester I questioned society after society about lending on low income property last year when I could see local authority funds drying up, and the answers were illuminating. Three miles from the city centre is blighted.
There are a lot of terraced houses that will continue to provide good homes when some of the jerry-built new stuff is falling down.
The building societies innocently explain that they are in the hands of the surveyors. The Corporation surveyors at least had the guts to say when houses are overpriced and to insist on repairs being done to bring them up to standard.
The small people are paying up to 22 to 28 per cent. on merchant bank mortgages and tied up with life policies which they can't afford because they can't obtain a house otherwise.

He has sent me 15 addresses of which he has personal knowledge which have been referred to building societies and turned down—in many cases without


even an inspection by the societies. In most of these the societies—which he names—did not like the area. They included streets in Salford, Pendleton, Cheetham Hill, Clayton, Irlams, the Height, Monton, Gorton, Longsight, Heaton Park, Levenshulme, Moston and even Withington and Didsbury. That shows that in these cases it is not just a particular district, but a particular type of house which is rejected. I have reports of this evil practice from London—particularly Lambeth and Islington—Leicester, Loughborough, Newcastle and Huddersfield. No doubt the situation is the same in other areas of which I am not aware.

Why do the societies adopt this policy? They say that it is due to lack of security in such areas and to threats of local government redevelopment there, but often these are improvement areas where the council assures buyers that the houses will stand for 30 years or more.

Or they say that the borrowers are more likely to get into arrears, but I have quoted cases of well-paid applicants and in any case, as we say in Lancashire "There's nowt so safe as houses." The societies have the security of the houses. Local authorities are willing to lend on them and hardly ever do building societies or councils lose on their lendings.

Or the societies say that they depend on the advice of chartered surveyors, but the surveyors work on the same kind of restrictive approach and they know what the societies want. I also suspect that it is much easier and more profitable to survey and grant one big mortgage on one expensive house in the plusher suburbs than on several small ones in the less-well-off areas.

Until recently, the family who failed to secure a building society mortgage was often able to get one from the local authority which did not object to older houses and often granted 100 per cent. mortgages. Then last year, the Government cut by £100 million the amount the councils could lend.

The Government, with the best of intentions, entered into an agreement with the building societies under which the societies would make good this sum by lending it on applications for mortgages

sponsored by councils. The scheme has been a flop. Recently, the Building Societies Association admitted that only one-third of the sum had been advanced and I believe that many of the applications were ones that the societies would have accepted in any case.

This summer, as part of the public expenditure cuts, the Government have knocked a further £150 million off the councils' permitted lending total and have said for a second time that they hope that the building societies will compensate for it. That is wishful thinking.

So what is the solution? It is that the Government require the societies to make 10 per cent, of their advances available to councils, so that they, in turn, can grant mortgages in these districts and on this type of house to applicants who cannot get them from the societies.

The building societies are now lending at the rate of £6 billion a year. Surely it is not asking too much for them to devote 10 per cent of their funds to the poorer half of the population. It is up to the Government to bring this about—and quickly.

3.8 a.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): My hon. Friend has raised the important issue of building societies and the availability of money for people in desperate need. I can assure him that my Department is very concerned about the problems of inner city areas and that this is the subject of constant study. It has become increasingly clear that demolition and redevelopment cannot be regarded as the only appropriate answer to the whole complex range of housing problems. The Government are deeply committed to a policy of making the best possible use of the existing housing stock and adopting a flexible and sensible approach to the renewal of rundown areas.
We want to avoid the break-up of communities. We take full account of the needs of individuals and families and the physical condition and potential of the property concerned. Therefore, we are placing emphasis on the improvement and rehabilitation of older property.
We have given special attention to pre-1919 property. We have discussed this problem with the Building Societies Association as well as with local authorities. We have worked with all concerned on the development of the concepts of housing action areas and priority neighbourhoods, introduced in the Housing Act 1974, and have made more money available for taking unfit houses in the private rented sector into social ownership. The size of this task is so great that we are looking simultaneously towards new ways of achieving our objectives, and studies are in hand to explore how forms of social ownership and management might be devised to enable faster progress to be made.
I appreciate that local authority mortgage lending, which unfortunately has had to be cut, has been a very important factor in dealing with the problems that my hon. Friend has highlighted in this debate. It has been an important mechanism by which local authorities have encouraged individuals to put effort and money into the renewal of property which otherwise—and certainly previously—might have decayed. We shall be discussing with local authorities how their available allocations, which unfortunately, as I say, have had to be reduced, can best be used to meet the needs of the areas to which my hon. Friend has been referring, the areas of housing stress.
Already local authorities devote their funds to closely defined categories of people and property, the main category being older property. Indeed, in our advice to all authorities we are stressing the fact that their loans should be to those who would not normally be covered by building society loans.
I turn to the key question of the effectiveness of building society help. My hon. Friend constantly draws our attention to this problem. I should like to comment first on his proposal that building societies should be required to lend 10 per cent. of their funds annually to local authorities for them in turn to lend to their own customers. I must say to my hon. Friend that there is a fundamental difficulty about this proposal. Even if local authority lending were to be funded in this special way, it would still have to be reckoned within the total of public borrowing and public expendi-

ture. The overwhelming need for a reduction in public sector borrowing and expenditure was what the Chancellor's package was all about, so there can be no question, in the present financial situation and under the present arrangements, of measures which run directly counter to this policy.
However, my Department has, in fact, initiated urgent discussions with the Building Societies Association. I know that there is considerable controversy about how far the building societies have moved, but I assure my hon. Friend that some movement has taken place.
Looking back over the history of building society help in making up the shortfall in local authority lending, to which my hon. Friend referred, we have the £100 million scheme under which societies agreed, when restrictions on local authority lending were first imposed in 1975–76, to make up to £100 million available to local authority nominees. The scheme has been much criticised. It was slow to get off the ground. It has been criticised particularly by those. who expected building societies to take every applicant put forward by local authorities. However, the scheme was never intended to put building societies in the place of local authorities. It was always intended that societies would apply their normal lending criteria, waiving only the usual requirement of societies that borrowers should also be investors.
It is worth considering what an undertaking such an operation was for the building society movement. It is not a single entity but an amalgam of over 400 independent societies, and this was the first time that the movement as a whole had co-ordinated action for such a purpose. Therefore, it was not really surprising that there should have been initial problems and that the scheme got off to a rather slow start, but we have now seen over £50 million allocated within the scheme itself, and a considerable amount of extra lending on older properties is being done by building societies.
For example, the percentage of building society borrowers obtaining mortgages on pre-1919 dwellings has risen from 17 per cent. in the second quarter of 1975 to 23 per cent. in the first quarter of 1976. I appreciate the limitations of statistics, but it is clear that there has


been a substantial increase in lending by building societies at the older end of the market, and the general import of those figures should not be overlooked.
But the most important development to arise from that first scheme is the constantly improving liaison between building societies and local authorities—both centrally in the talks between the Building Societies Association and the local authority associations and locally, in the close working arrangements that have developed in many places making the £100 million scheme a vital contribution to the local housing scene.
Only through close contact between societies and local authorities at local level can a really effective contribution be made by societies to making up the mortgage lending gap. Societies need to know what local authorities' intentions are for particular areas, and how their renewal strategies will be applied on the ground. Local authorities, on the other hand, need to appreciate the legal constraints within which societies have to operate, and the sensitivity of the relationship between societies and their investors, upon whom societies ultimately depend for their capacity to lend at all.
A good deal of work has been done centrally. For example, the Building Societies Association has given member societies the results of some work done in identifying categories of property on which societies were said to be unwilling to lend. It has become clear that many societies have modified their lending criteria as a result, although it varies from area to area. But to be effective, all this must be seen in the local context. There are no hard and fast lines of demarcation in types of lending—each case is considered separately, and that can be done sensibly only if all the relevant facts are clear.
I turn now to the vexed question of "red-lining" or "blue-zoning" which has had so much publicity lately. I shall carefully consider the evidence which my hon. Friend has given when I review this debate.
It may be right that in some cases societies feel—we are discussing this with them—that they should not lend, that some properties may actually have a negative value if the cost of demolition would exceed the site valuation. In less

extreme cases, the costs of rehabilitation might be so high that it would be questionable whether any individual should be encouraged to take on such a liability.
What is needed is a joint approach by societies and local authorities to an area —planning the improvement by whatever means seems most appropriate. Lack of knowledge of the local authorities' intentions can lead societies to have doubts about lending in an area; and lack of a working relationship with societies can lead local authorities not to appreciate the enormous potential societies have for helping their schemes for improvement and rehabilitation. Over-rigid attitudes on either side are bound to be counterproductive.
All building societies are statutorily required to make a proper valuation survey of property and satisfy themselves of the security of every loan made. But we are identifying a number of areas which are being carefully considered in our ongoing discussions.
I should like to look at the realities of the situation. Building societies and local authorities must work closely together if the building society offer of help is to do most good. All of us should do anything we can to foster that close local understanding that can do so much to make the building societies' help really effective.
I have been encouraged by some of the results that I have seen in various parts of the country where building societies have moved a great way towards lending money on old property—particularly pre-1919 property—which two or three years ago would probably not have got a building society loan. We are making progress in that area and we want to help this along.
I take very seriously the strong case that my hon. Friend has made. I shall consider all the points he has made to see whether more progress could be made. I regard housing as a tremendous social problem. We are anxious to have our people adequately housed. My hon. Friend has raised a problem which has caused great anxiety. I know that from my own mailbag. I shall carefully consider what my hon. Friend has said and see whether together we can find a suitable solution.

Mr. Frank Allaun: No one is asking the societies to grant mortgages on houses which are about to be demolished, but many of the houses will be standing for 20 or 30 years. The local authorities have given that assurance in many cases, under general improvement schemes.
Secondly, my hon. Friend says—and I thank him for the tone of his reply—that even if my scheme were operated and the building societies were required to lend a certain amount of their funds to the local authorities, for them in turn to grant mortgages, it would still be considered part of public sector spending, which is now being cut. Is it not daft that if a person goes to the town hall for a loan to buy a house that is considered public spending, but if he or she walks across the road to the ABC Building Society and obtains a loan to do precisely the same thing it is not considered part of public sector spending, and therefore is free of control? As Henry Aughton, one

of the great experts on housing, has said, this is crazy finance. The Government should take that into account and not restrict council lending in this way.

Mr. Armstrong: I have heard the argument on that matter from Mr. Aughton many times. It is a controversial matter and discussions are taking place about it. Under present arrangements it is considered public expenditure, but I take on board what my hon. Friend said.
My hon. Friend is not asking for loans to be made on property that is to be demolished. There is a movement in the direction that my hon. Friend and others want, though not as much as they would wish. But we are continuing the discussions and pointing out that old property with a life of 30 years or so can be a very good investment and provide the kind of home we want our people to have.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-two minutes past Three o'clock a.m.